1920-04-08

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 10-11 GEORGE V, 1920 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1034	Volume II: Pages 1035-2002


Volume III:: Pages 2003-3078	Volume IV: Pages 3079-4017


Volume V:: Pages 4019-4591



VOLUME CXLII


[Stage Direction]
)


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 8, 1920.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. ROBB:: How many freight cars were on track at Halifax, N.S., St. John, N.B., Portland, Maine, (terminals) ; loaded with Canadian grain or *rain products, about dates March 20th, March 10th and March 1st last?


Hon. Mr. REID:: Halifax-March 1, 229 cars; March 10, 216 cars; March 20, 368 cars.
St. John-March 1, 209 cars; March 10, 200 cars; March 20, 148 cars.
Portland, Me.-Portland, Maine, being in the United States information is not available.



MILITARY DISTRICTS IN QUEBEC PROVINCE.

Mr. HUNT:: 1.1 How many military districts were there in the province of Quebec?
2.	In which districts are the counties of Compton, Stanstead and Richmond and Wolfe?
3.	How many military police were there employed in the province of Quebec, and what salary did each member of said force receive?
4.	What amount was paid for the travelling and other expenses of each of the said military police?
5.	How many of these military police have been dismissed, and for what reason?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Military Districts 4 and 5 and part of Military District 3 are in the province of Quebec.
2.	The counties of Compton, Richmond and Wolfe are in Military District No. 5. The county of Stanstead is in Military District No. 4.
3.	The number of military police employed in the province of Quebec is not immediately available, and could only be obtained with great difficulty, as no specific date is given,
and the numbers varied from time to time as circumstances demanded.
Members of the corps of military police received C.E.F. regimental rates of pay and allowances of their rank, and, in the case of non-commissioned officers and men, $1 per diem extra duty pay.
4.	When travelling on duty away from their station, military personnel of the Canadian Military Police Corps received their actual and necessary travelling expenses but in no case exceeding $6 per diem for officers and $3 for other ranks.
5.	All the military police in Military Districts 3, 4 and 5 have been struck off strength on general demobilization.



CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY BOND ISSUE.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What was the outstanding bond issue on the assets of the Central Vermont railway at the date the Grand Trunk system was agreed to be taken over by the Government?
2.	What was the rate of interest and date of maturity?
3.	Has any decision been reached as to how these bonds are to be retired at maturity? If so, when and how was this decision reached? What will the rate of interest be on the new
issue?
4.	Did the original Grand Trunk guarantee m regard to these bonds cover principal as well as interest or only interest? If interest only for what period?
5.	What was the net profit of the Central 316rmg'?railWay for the year ending December


John Dowsley Reid: The information asked for will be the subject of investigation by the Board of Arbitration to be appointed under the Grand Trunk Acquisition Act of last session, and it is, therefore, not in the public interest that it be disclosed at the present time.



JUDGES' SALARIES.

Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: Is it the intention of the Government to increase the judges' salaries as requested recently by delegates of the whole Canadian Bar Association?
Rt. lion. Mr. DOHERTY: The intention of the Government will be disclosed in due course.



RAILWAY RATES.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: How much were railway rates advanced since 1915 on the roads:	(a) east of Port
Arthur; (h) west of Port Arthur?


John Dowsley Reid: (a) By its General
Order No. 167, dated July 3, 1916, the board permitted a more or less general increase in freight rates in Eastern Canada. This increase affected the so-called special freight tariffs referred to in section 328 of the Railway Act, 1907; that is to say, the special (not the standard maximum) tariffs applicable to freight carried under the Canadian Freight Classification, and the so-called commodity rates. The increases granted varied according to districts and nature of commodities, but the general effect was an approximate increase of 5 per cent on the traffic as a whole, (b) By its General Order No. 212, dated January 15,	1918,
which, after postponement, was confirmed by Order in Council P.C. 1862, dated March 14, 1918, a general increase in freight rates in both Eastern and Western Canada was approved, and was expected to approximate 15 per cent. At the same time approval was given to an increase in the standard maximum passenger fare east pf the Rock Mountains from 3 cents to 3.45 a mile.
Because of the statutory limitations the freight rate increase in the West averaged 10 per cent, while in the East it averaged 15 per cent.
By Order in Council P.C. 1863, dated July 27, 1918, freight rates throughout Canada were mandatorily increased in variable amounts approximating in general 25 per cent, but working out in practice an average of about 20 per cent.



ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.

Mr. CALDWELL:: 1.	Who are the shareholders of the St. John and Quebec Railway?
2.	Who are the directors and president of the said railway?
3.	Who has authority to sign contracts or agreements on behalf of this railway company?
4.	What is the date of the agreement between the St. John and Quebec Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company as to the securing of running rights by the said St. John and Quebec railway from Westfield Beach to St. John, N.B.?
5.	What is the value of the proportion of that section of the Canadian Pacific railway between Westfield Beach and St. John, N.B., which the St. John and Quebec Railway Company has agreed to pay the interest on, in return for running rights over the above-mentioned section of the Canadian Pacific railway, and what is the rate of interest to be paid on same?

6.	What proportion of all working expenses is the said St. John and Quebec Railway Company to pay the said Canadian Pacific Railway in the above agreement?
7.	What will this payment of interest by the said St. John and Quebec Railway Company amount to yearly, and what will their proportion of all working expenses covered by the said agreement amount to yearly?
8.	What do the gross earnings of the St. John and Quebec railway amount to monthly and yearly?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: This does not seem to be a question with which the Dominion Government has anything to do, and we have no records in connection with the matter.



THE PROPRIETARY OR PATENT MEDICINE ACT.

Mr. LESAGE:: Is it the intention of the Government to amend subsection 3 of section 5 of the Act to amend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act sanctioned on the 7th day of July, 1919, so as to provide for the disposal of a stock of any proprietary or patent medicine which may remain in the hands of a retailer when the manufacturer from whom he has purchased the said medicine neglects or fails to secure a renewal of his license?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: An announcement will be made in due course.



PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES.

*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many parliamentary secretaries are there at present?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What salaries do they receive?
4.	What duties do they perform?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to
continue such offices for a considerable length of time?	_
6.	If so, why?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Two.
2.	Mr. Hugh Clark, M.P., and Mr. F. H. Keefer, M.P.
3.	$5,000 per annum.
4.	Assistants to their respective ministers in their departments.
5 and 6. These questions will receive their answer in the House later, depending upon the action of the Government. .



MR. J. W. MARGESON.

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is Mr. J. W. Margeson a member of the Board of Pension Commissioners?
2.	Is the Government aware that he holds a position in the Ottawa Branch of the G.W.V.A.?
3.	Is the Government aware that he took a prominent part in the recent G.W.V.A. convention held in Montreal?
4.	Is it true that the said Mr. J. W. Margeson stated that should a small amount of gratuity be asked for it would quite likely be granted to the soldiers?

5.	What authority did he have for this statement?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to allow prominent officials of the Board of Pension Commissioners to take part in such conventions and to suggest to the delegates any plans either for increase of pensions or otherwise?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. The Government has no official information on the matter.
5.	No authority.
6.	The Board of Pension Commissioners was appointed under statute. They have the powers and authority given to them under the statute, and are not under the control of the Government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
' Mr. DUFF:
1.	What was the number of ships which cleared from Canadian ports during the year 1919 and loaded with Canadian products?
2.	What was the number of ships which left the harbour of Portland, Maine, loaded with Canadian products?
3.	How many tons of cargo did said ships carry from said Canadian ports and from said American port?
['I will not proceed.']
Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: With reference to this question there will be no information in the Customs Department except with reference to the last question, No. 3. It can stand as an order for a return.



Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister) moved:: That the organization of the officers and clerks of the Joint Distribution of the House of Commons and Senate, submitted to this House on the thirty-first day of March by His Honour the Speaker be approved and confirmed, and that a message he sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
67*

[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called:
That the organization of the staff of the House of Commons, as submitted to the House by His Honour the Speaker, on the thirty-first day of March, be approved and confirmed.-Sir George Foster.
George Eulas Foster: With reference to this
resolution, I understand that it has been. the practice to refer a matter of this kind to the Committee of the Whole House, so as to give members an opportunity of easily and familiarly discussing the matter. U propose to adopt that course to-day and tc.< move the House into Committee of the' Whole to discuss this resolution. That seems to me better than referring the matter to a special committee, but when we get into Committee of the Whole that question can be taken up and discussed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Inasmuch as there is no notice of the motion for a special committee, such a motion now would require the consent of the House.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):: There is this advantage in a
special committee, that officials who may feel aggrieved, if there are such, and I have no knowledge of it, could appear before that special committee and be heard, whereas in Committee of the Whole that privilege is not open to them. It would seem an obvious convenience to have a small committee appointed before whom any individual who might feel himself aggrieved could appear. I do not see why we should not give the officials this opportunity.


George Green Foster: In Committee of the Whole we shall have the advantage of the statement of Mr. Speaker with reference to the classification, and we can then decide whether or not it would, be better to refer the matter to a special committee.


Mr. BELAND:: I understand that there is no desire on the part of the leader of the House to refuse the appointment of a committee, the matter being only postponed until we are in committee of the whole.


George Green Foster: Exactly.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And then we can offer suggestions.


George Green Foster: Yes. I now beg to move:
That the organization of the staff of the House of Commons, as submitted to the House


'10-38 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
by His Honour the Speaker, on the thirty-first day of March, be approved and confirmed.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was not my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to make any general statement in regard to the proposed plan of organization, but to meet as they came any suggestions which might be offered by hon. members. I may say, however, in a general way, that the practice of moving the House into committee to consider this plan is that which was followed in the case of the reorganization of the House in the year 1913 and also in the year 1908. I think that there is probably less necessity to-day for ' a special committee to consider the proposal than there would have been on either of the two former occasions for the reason that the House of Commons is now concerned only with the bringing down of a plan of organization. The question of salaries and the question as to who shall occupy given positions is now by special statute handed over to the Civil Service Commission. It therefore remains for the House to merely produce the skeleton of an organization. 1 do not know that there is anything further that I can say, except to mention the fact that on the two previous occasions, notably in 1913, on the suggestion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the items were taken up one by one. I would suggest that this course be now followed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There can be no objection to that.
Law Branch-Parliamentary Counsel, chief assistant to Parliamentary Counsel, two assistants to Parliamentary Counsel, three officials ; sessional assistance as required.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is there any departure
from the previous classification in regard to this branch?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: None whatever.


Mr. ETHIER:: Is there not some change? Has some new position not been created in connection with the office of Parliamentary Counsel?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are no changes in the Law Branch, except provision for an extra assistant whose services are required.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Is there not some
motion now before the Senate with a view to combining the law offices of the Commons and of the Senate, and bring them under one branch?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The proposal to amalgamate the Law Branches of the Senate and of the Commons is now before the House for consideration by message from the Senate.


William Sora Middlebro: Therefore, should
that branch not stand?


Mr. PROULX:: What are the qualifications of the assistants to the Parliamentary Counsel? The Chief Assistant and the two other assistants must be professional men, I suppose.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, they must be barristers.


Edmond Proulx: Is any one of these assistants required to know both languages?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, one of the officials now is familiar with both languages.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That is a better answer.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Since the classification of 1913, have there been any changes in the personnel of the Law Branch?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. The Law Branch has been further reorganized since the general reorganization of 1913; or, perhaps to put it another way, the branch was reorganized in consequence of the general scheme of reorganization of 1913. There have been no changes in personnel, other than those resultant from natural causes: one arising from the loss of a member of the staff at the front, and the other in connection with the appointment of a stenographer.
Agreed to.
Journals Branch-Chief of Journals and Secretarial Branch, assistant chief of Journals and Secretarial Branch ; four officials; sessional assistance as required.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In this branch there must be quite an important departure from the last classification. I see there will be only one Chief of the Journals, whereas previously we had a Chief of Journals for the English section and a Chief of Journals for the French section. This appears to be a very important departure, and I should like to have an expression of opinion from His Honour the Speaker on the matter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As pointed out by the
hon. member, there is a departure from the previous arrangement, for an obvious reason. You cannot have two Journals for the House of Commons. Though you may-have one Journal published in two languages, there can in the nature of things be but one Journal for the House of Commons. As a matter of actual practice, the Journal is entered up in English day by day by the Clerk at the Table, and the French

Journal is a translation of the English edition. It would therefore be anomalous to have two branches of the Journals' office for the House of Commons, and it seems but fitting and proper that the official who heretofore had charge of the French section of the Journal should be placed in the translation branch under " Journals That is the explanation I have to offer and it seems in logic the fair position to take.
iMr. LAPOINTE: I think the law requires that the proceedings of this House should be conducted and reported in both' languages and not in one language and translated into the other. If we must accept the situation as described by his honour the Speaker, we would have just as much right to ask that the proceedings should be reported in French and translated into the English language. Both languages are on a footing of equality under the law and I think that this proposed arrangement is a change which would not be acceptable to the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would be the last person to suggest that the French language has not an equal status with the English language in this House. The position that I take has no reference to the French language as such. If the Clerk at the Table were one who spoke the French language and chose to enter the Journals in French, the position would be transposed; the translation would be into the English language. But that would not affect the position at all. It is illogical to insist that there shall be two Journals for the House of Commons; I do not see how it can be done. You can have one Journal in two languages but you cannot have two Journals.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It should be under the same branch I submit.
/


Henri Sévérin Béland: The practice, which was established some seventy years ago and which has been followed ever since, has been highly satisfactory. It think it was in 1842 that the two heads of the Journals were first provided for, one English and one French. The reason for it, I think, is obvious. Although, as Mr. Speaker says, there is only one Journal, this Journal is published in two languages. If you have only one head, he must be thoroughly conversant with both languages; otherwise you could not say that he is a responsible head. It is in view of the fact-and I speak very frankly-that there are very few Englishspeaking people in this country who are thoroughly conversant with French that it was provided there should be two heads,
t
one English and the other French, in order that the Journal may be presented in both languages with a man responsible for each edition. That principle was confirmed in 1866, again in 1867, if I ^mistake not by classification in 1885, also in 1904, and in 1913 it was confirmed again by Dr. Sproule when Speaker. Really, I do not see any reason why we should do away with one of the heads of the Journals, be it the French head or the English head. The person who might be the head of the Journals might be an English-speaking gentleman and he would not likely be thoroughly conversant with the French language. Under such circumstances, who will be responsible when we preseilt to you the fact that the French Journal is not in proper form? The translator? The translator may be held responsible to a certain extent but the head, or editor of the Journal in French,, should be responsible and if there is no French head he cannot be held responsible. I know that there is no desire on the part of his honour, the Speaker, to do away with the English or the French language. I know he is animated with a desire to be fair and impartial in this regard, but 11 maintain that unless you have two heads of the Journal-and the Journals are the most important part of the publications of the House-so recorded by Bourinot himself-you will not have entire satisfaction.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I respectfully differ
from my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Be-land). I entirely disassociate myself from his argument. If it is logical to say that we must have two heads, a French and an English head, of the Journals, that argument would apply with equal force to every department of the Government. That, I submit is an unsound position to take. Surely there can be but one responsible head of any department. It only requires that an official shall have a competent knowledge of French and English to enable him to say that the French Journal is an exact transcription of the English Journal; at all events during such period of time as the Clerk of the House happens to be an English-speaking person. There was at the head of the English branch Mr. Dalton, an old and very capable official, who has been superannuated. It is not the purpose to appoint an official in his place. In the interest of economy as well as of efficiency, it has been thought wiser to amalgamate a number of the offices of the House under one head. By so doing we can get more efficient work and we will save this country several thousand dollars a year which

in these times is an important consideration. I want to point out to the hon, members of the House who speak the French tongue that there is not the slightest disposition on the part of either the Speaker or the staff to do other than to see that the French-speaking officials get ample justice and fair treatment. I think that a careful examination of the officers of the House and the salaries paid to them will go to show that they are getting exceedingly generous treatment at the hands of the country. I would therefore ask the hon. gentleman not to press for the appointment of a French head for this branch, which is not necessary, but to assent to the proposal which is made solely in the interest of efficiency and economy.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I have not the slightest doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, are acting in a perfectly straightforward fashion and that you have no desire to interfere with the privileges and the rights pertaining to the use of the French language in this-House. Those rights and privileges have been very distinctly recognized in the past, and no less an authority than the late Dr. Bour-inot, in the last edition of his work on Parliamentary Procedure, notes and states very clearly that the rights of the French Journals should be equal to those of the English Journals. If there is any doubt on the point let me quote from section 133 of the British North America Act which provides as follows :
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and both these languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses.
The right there laid down was recognized in this Parliament in 1917 when I believe Mr. Ghapleau was superannuated. That gentleman was the Chief editor of the French Journals and the position vacated by his superannuation I understand is still unfilled. Now it is suggested that there should be only one Chief of Journals. The official occupying that position is an English-speaking gentleman who is not conversant with the French language. True he will have a French-Canadian as his assistant but what about the salary attached to the position? When this classification goes before the Civil Service Commission the commission will be bound by it, although the salary is not what it should be for the French-Canadian official who occupies the position of assistant. That is what we are objecting to and why we are

insisting upon adherence to the principle already stated by my hon. friend from Beauce.	.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The committee must bear in mind that although in this instance the head of the branch is an English-speaking official that merely so happens. I can direct the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ethier) to the circumstances that within the last few months the head of the Stationery Branch who was English-speaking passed away and a French-speaking gentleman was appointed in his stead.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The principle of promotion was followed in that case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. It means that the member of a staff, whether he be French or English, must take his turn in promotion. No doubt in the course of time the head of the Journals may be French-speaking, but in the present instance the senior officer in that branch, a man who is a wonderfully efficient public servant, happens to be English-speaking, and when the vacancy occurred he was appointed to the head of his branch.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I never like to take any part in a discussion where a question affecting language is concerned.


Mr. GERVAIS:: Why?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: It is somewhat of a sensitive matter with people generally. However I believe in respecting the rights of all minorities where such rights exist. The French-speaking people of this country have the right to speak either language in this House. It is simply a matter of choice what language shall be used. I may get up and speak English one moment and then if I so wish I can speak French the next moment. While section 133 of the British North America Act makes the use of either language optional for debating purposes, it provides that the Journals and Votes and Proceedings shall be printed in both languages. That being so, if you make a distinction and say that the Votes and Proceedings shall be printed first in the English language and afterwards translated into French you are placing the latter language upon a footing of inferiority as compared with the English language. When I say that I know how sensitive people generally are in the matter of questions of language I feel that I can speak freely upon the subject. I know the feelings of my French-speaking friends and of my French-Canadian friends, and the moment you pass this particular item as it

stands with the explanation that has been given-and I am not criticising anything which Mr. Speaker has said-you will immediately make a certain class of people in this country who have equal rights with the majority, along certain lines at least, feel that they occupy a position of inferiority where those rights have been guaranteed by the British North America Act. What has been done in the past or what will be done in the future really does not affect the question at issue. The right which to-day belongs to the French-speaking people should be fconsecrated to them in order that the relations as between the English-speaking and the French-speaking people in this country may continue to be harmonious. I would like to use whatever influence I might have with a view, Mr. Speaker, toward delaying this item and giving further consideration to it with a view to finding some means by which, if necessary, the official at the head of this branch, shall know and be able to take his notes in both languages. I admit that it is a very difficult thing to do. It is a very difficult thing to become a good French scholar. I have been trying to learn the French language for a great many years and I have not as yet begun to do so. But while that is true we must respect the British North America Act as it stands, until we have another Act, giving the same guarantees, which will supplement it. Therefore I want, as strongly as possible, to approve the attitude of the hon. member for Quebec East and the hon. member for Beauce in the remarks which they have made this afternoon.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I, in reply to the hon. member for Wright, offer some further observations? I hope it is not necessary to assure the hon. gentleman that he is presenting an aspect which never entered my mind.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Quite so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Let us face the situation squarely. If you are to have two Journals of the House printed-one in English and one in French-each of equal force and effect prepared by different individuals it would be quite impossible to have those Journals in an exact position on certain important public matters of record unless they are prepared in collaboration and in the one office. So that, in effect, in order to have a Journal which is accurate the French and English Journals must be the same; one must be an exact transcription of the other. It may be that hon. members speaking the French tongue wish to press
for a French head of the Journals branch, and in that case it is not for me to insist upon the present plan. I feel that in the interests of efficiency and economy I am doing my duty in defending this proposal before the House, but I would be the last person to insist upon its acceptance if the House is of a contrary opinion. If the objection presented by the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) be insisted upon, I would ask that this item be allowed to stand.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I did not blame the Speaker-I know him too well-nor did I impute any prejudice to him, if I may use that word for the moment for want of a more apt term, d simply submitted the constitutional aspect of the question to the Speaker and to the committee in order that it might be looked into. I certainly would be the last man to say anything against the Speaker.


Mr. STEIN:: Mr. Speaker brought forward the question of economy. I submit that it is rather a question of principle for the minority of this country. We can replace dollars and cents, but when we do away with principles they are often gone forever. I submit that we should not discuss this matter from the standpoint of dollars and cents.


Mr. CURRIE:: It must be apparent to the House that it would be better to have this matter threshed out before a special committee. We do not want to get into an argument on the 'bilingual question. In spite of the assurance of Mr. Speaker, and while he may look upon this classification as something that does not disturb the existing state of affairs, there is no doubt that it contains the germ of deep fundamental changes. For instance, the House may not know that since an earlier re-organization of the staff the Votes and Proceedings Branch and the Journals Branch have been amalgamated, and for the first time we have only one document, the Votes and Proceedings, having virtually done away with the Journals. I find that the clerks of committees have been made simply officials under the head of the committee, and many other changes have been made-changes which I think the House could not very well discuss right now, and it would be far better to refer them to a special committee to go into the merits. II might say that although I have read the British North America Act several times I did not know

it was fundamentally necessary that special documents of the House should be simultaneously issued in both languages. The Speaker is imbued with the idea of economy and efficiency, and I agree with him on those matters, but there is a danger of going too far in this direction, and there might as a result be some further disturbance in the country-and we have enough disturbances now without inviting more trouble.
I	would respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that the leader of the Government and the Speaker take steps to have this matter referred to a committee of the House. Then that committee can go into the question why some clerks have lost their promotion, why they have been placed in positions where they cannot hope to become chiefs of their staffs, and so forth. Of course, the House of Commons is supreme as to its own staff, and it should maintain its independence regardless of all other committees and act as it thinks best in the interests of the country and of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 should correct one statement made by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie). The change in the practice of the House respecting the publication of the Journals and the Votes and Proceedings was made after a conference between the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the then leader of the Government, a special committee was appointed, the matter was inquired into, and a unanimous report was brought down that $11,000 a year could be saved-not by amalgamating the Journals and the Votes and Proceedings, but by so arranging the type of the Votes and Proceedings that it could be made available for printing the Journals, and thus save a large amount of labour and paper without in the slightest degree sacrificing efficiency.
II	know there are objections to the proposed organization on the part of certain officials of the House, but it will be found in ninety-nine cases of a hundred that those objections have solely to do with the question of remuneration. It must be borne in mind that the House, by its own act, has divested itself of the right to say what pay its servants shall receive, unless it chooses to do so by a special Act, and in the present instance we are concerned solely with the plan of organization.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman, I submit there is really little difference between us. The fact remains that the two staffs that

I referred to have been amalgamated, anc* the type set for the Votes and Proceedings does for the Journals. But when the matter of having the French language put on the same status as the English language so far as these documents and the staff are concerned is brought up, it is for us to decide, and it seems to me that the best course to pursue will be to refer the whole question to a special committee to thresh out.
Motion for postponement of this item carried.


COMMITTEES BRANCH.
[Stage Direction]
Chief of Committees and Private Bills Branch.
Assistant Chief of Committees and Private Bills Branch.
Five officials.
Sessional assistance as required.
Mr. CANNON:: Can we find anywhere the salaries attached to these positions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, for the reason that the matter of salary as well as that of who shall fill the positions is left with the Civil Service Commission.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand that
when the House adopts this plan of organization the salaries of the employees of the House will be determined by the Civil Service Commission and that Parliament will not know in advance what those salaries will be?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the law. Section 34 of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended by the Statutes of 1919, provides that so much of the Act as relates to appointment, transfer, promotion, salaries, increases and classification shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of Parliament.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that such
is the law, but I should think that in connection with the employees of the House of Commons as well as those of the other departments the law should be applied in this way: In the Estimates of each department there is an item entitled "Civil Government," in which the salaries given to the different employees are set forth. This item is brought down and members can take cognizance of the amounts before voting them. But here we are giving a blank cheque to the Civil Service Commission; we are enabling them to give whatever salaries they like, and we have nothing to do with the matter. I do not think that is according to proper parliamentary procedure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should point out that the House of Commons must vote the salaries; therefore the question does come before the House for consideration.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Sometimes the title that a clerk bears is of considerable sentimental importance to him and he may consider that he is being degraded in the service by being grouped as one of five officials. Is it the intention to take these titles from these men, or to leave them as they are?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not the intention
to take from any officer of the House any title which he may now possess or any salary which he may be entitled to receive. But the idea is for the future to get away from a multiplicity of titles. There is no reason in the world why a man who is clerk of a committee should not be able to act as a clerk of any one of the committees of the House. If, for example, a certain committee is sitting and the clerk designated for that committee happens for the moment to be acting as clerk of another special committee, a difficulty at once arises. The idea ought to be to have a staff of efficient committee clerks who should be available for any committee, regular or special, which may be sitting. That was the idea of the arrangement at present proposed.


John Allister Currie: In view of the explanation that has been given by the Speaker it would seem that there is a question of policy here involving the whole operation of the various committees of the House. The clerk of the Railway Committee, for instance, has been custodian of the records of that committee from time immemorable. It is apparently the intention to provide that we should have no permanent clerks of committees; that a committee may have one clerk to-day and another to-morrow. I do not think that I am prepared to support that proposal. I am very much of a Conservative, and I think it is only proper for us to maintain the precedents which have long been established in this regard. I have said that fundamental changes were to be suggested in this simple-looking organization scheme, and for that reason I again urge that a special committee of the whole House should go into the question and make a report upon what we should do in the matter. If we approve the whole thing this afternoon we may swallow something we shall find later on that we cannot very well digest.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) says that he is very much of a Conservative; I, being very much of a Liberal, support his suggestion that this matter should be dealt with by a special committee. If we have to decide upon a classification of the staff of the House we should do it in an intelligent way. \\Te should hear any objections to that classification which may be made by officials of the House. We should hear their complaints; we should know all that pertains to the matter. I have the greatest confidence in His Honour the Speaker, but if we, the members of the House of Commons, are the judges as to a classification of our own staff, we have a right to hear the objections, the requests, the complaints, of the members of the staff, and to obtain from first sources a knowledge of the basis upon which a proper classification should be made. I do not see what objection there is to referring this matter to a special committee of the House for study and consideration.
So far as the question of the French translation is concerned, I do not think it is fair to put all the French translators of the various branches in a special branch by themselves; it looks as if we were conceding something which rve should insist on as a right. It looks as if the equality of conditions that should prevail as between the two languages in connection with the various branches of this House has disappeared. What is the objection to leaving the translator of the Journals of the House in the same office as the head of that branch? He could be Assistant Chief of the Journals and remain in that branch. The mere fact of transferring the office so that it shall be included with all the other translators is a mark of inferiority that I do not like and that I am sure many others will not like. Why refuse the proposal of my hon. friend (Mr. Currie)? Why not refer the whole matter to a special committee of the House so that a decision may be arrived at based upon full knowledge of the conditions?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There seems to be a slight difference of opinion in the Committee respecting the nature of this plan of organization, which only goes to show that the preparation of such a document is not so easy a matter as might be thought. It may not be a perfect document, but I do think that on the whole the plan submitted by the Clerk merits the approval of the House. But I cannot see that any useful purpose can be served by our continuing the discussion further, especially as more pressing Government business is awaiting consideration. I therefore move

that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Allister Currie: Before that motion is put I would like to ask-


The CHAIRMAN:: The motion that the Committee rise and report progress is undebatable. The hon. member may not proceed unless the Speaker withdraws his motion.


John Allister Currie: Perhaps Mr. Speaker will permit me to put a question to him. Did not the staff of the House of Commons propose a schedule of their own altogether different from this plan which has been brought down, and entirely satisfactory to all the officials of the House? Have not several proposals been put before the Speaker? A special committee would be able to decide which of these proposals is the best.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no doubt that the staff of the House could arrange a schedule which would be satisfactory to them, provided each officer determined the amount of his own salary.


John Allister Currie: It is not a question of salary at all.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Such a plan might have been considered by the Clerk of the House; possibly it was. But it must be borne in mind that this plan of organization has been prepared in a regular way by the deputy head of the House of Commons department, who is the Clerk of the House.
It was not prepared by me per-4 p.m. sonally. I do not mean that I am not prepared to stand by it, for I am; I believe that on the whole it is a sound document. Although I am not able to give the hon. member exact information, I believe that a plan was proposed to the Clerk by the officers of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: May I ask when the Committee will sit again?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is out of order.
Progress reported.


WEDNESDAY EVENING SITTINGS.
George Eulas Foster: That on Wednesday, the 14th of April, and all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House shall meet at three o'clock p.m., that the sittings on such days shall in every respect he under the same rules prov'ded for 
other days, and that Government Notices of Motion and Government Orders shall have precedence over all business except Questions by Members and Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers.


Mr. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to ask my right hon. friend if he does not think it is perhaps a little early in the session to move this resolution. True, it relates to adding only Wednesday evening to the work of the House, but I would submit that all of us find an opportunity for reflecting upon the legislation before Parliament quite as important and helpful as having the time spent here for purposes of discussion. With committees meeting in the morning, and afternoon and evening sittings of this House, there is not much time left to hon. members who follow the proceedings of the House closely from day to day to give that thought which should be given to legislation of such great importance. One break in the week, on Wednesday night, affords something of a safety valve which, I think, is of real value to the work of Parliament. Speaking for myself, I think more and better work can be accomplished in the week by permitting the Wednesday evening interval, and particularly by avoiding late sittings at night. If we now begin sitting on Wednesday evening in addition to Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday evenings, hon, members after a late sitting perhaps on Monday and Tuesday would have no opportunity to make up for it on Wednesday evening, and with the possibility of a late sitting on Wednesday evening there would be extra fatigue during the next two days. In view of the work that Parliament has before it, I think my right hon. friend will admit that a good deal can be said for allowing this interval on Wednesday evening, so that hon. members may have an opportunity to give thought to the questions as well as participation in discussion when they come up in the House.


George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker, the plea that my hon. friend has made is one which is quite well known to hon. members who have frequented the House from the time of Confederation down to the present. There always comes a time when the Government thinks that in order to get through with its business it is necessary to take a little more time for Government measures, and in due course they make that proposition to the House. It is then the time-honoured custom for the leader of the Opposition to make a more or less elaborate pro-

test at the Government's taking this extra time at this particular moment, and for him to make a plea for a little more time for the members of the House for their resolutions, motions, and the like. Always the experience has been that the leader of the Government pays particular heed to the plea that has been made, and in good form and with good grace he allows another week. This squares the matter and nearly everybody is satisfied and amiable and complacent. Now, I am quite willing to do that and to give my hon. friend another week, if he will agree to the motion going through in that amended form. The business of the Government is pretty well before the House, and we all want to get it done. I imagine that we who are farmers have our stock and grain, sowing and the like of that to take care of and are very anxious to get back to our farms, because although it is cold weather now, there is promise of the sun shining stronger in a very short time. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will accept the motion with good grace and in good form if I postpone its operation for one week more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall be thankful for small mercies if we cannot get anything better.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, last year my right hon. friend who is now leading the Government made a speech very much like this one to-day, and told us to get our shoes on and be properly clad ready for going home quick. Then within a week he brought down the most elaborate business of the session, and told us that he had not meant what he said before at all. This year, I hope he means what he says.


George Green Foster: I really have not looked up last year's Hansard to see exactly what I did say, but I remember I said .something of that kind. Ejygencies, however occurred last year, as they always will, in private families as well as public assemblies. I do not see on the horizon any such exigency coming up at this time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion now reads
"on Wednesday, the twenty-first of April.''
Motion as amended agreed to.


REPLIES IN ENGLISH TO LETTERS IN FRENCH.
[Stage Direction]
(Translation). On the Orders of the Day:
, Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-[DOT]morency) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
should like to call the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to the fact that when letters are addressed in French to the different state departments, especially to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and to the Department of Trade and Commerce they are, as a general rule, answered in English. Both 'languages being official, ,the most elementary courtesy would require that the officials of those departments should answer in French the letters written to them in that language.
That is what I ask for on behalf of my constituents and every citizen of the province of Quebec who speaks no other language but French.
Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member is certainly out of order in discussing a matter of this character upon the Orders of the Day. He will have his opportunity on a motion to go into Supply.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask why the first part of question 42 standing in my name on to-day's Order Paper has been struck out, and by whose authority. As it stands now the question is almost unintelligible. .


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will examine the question as submitted by the hon. member very carefully. I am advised by the clerk that the question as submitted contained an allegation of fact. If that be correct, the clerk was within his rights in having that portion of the question deleted. However, I will inquire into the matter and advise the hon. member more definitely later.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The alleged facts are the words of the Minister of Justice.


Mr. DOHERTY:: Then they must be
facts.


BOARD OF COMMERCE-INQUIRY RE CANKERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency):: I should like to call the attention of the Government to an article which appears on page 2 of to-day's Gazette. Under the heading "Canners' Probe Held Up," it is stated that the Board of Commerce feels that "until a third commissioner to the Board is appointed and- the full Board of three commissioners can be in

attendance, it is not justified in undertaking the proposed investigation." I should like to know when the Government is to appoint the third commission. There is also a reference in the article to the Government's intention to conduct an investigation into the affairs of the Dominion Canners, Limited, and Canadian Canners, Limited. I should like to know why the Government has taken this matter out of the hands of the Board, and when it will proceed with the investigation.


George Green Foster: If my hon.
friend will put his question on the Order Paper distinctly and in-


Ernest Lapointe: Good French.


George Green Foster: -I shall be very glad to have an answer ready-in good French. I have not seen the extract myself, and I should be glad to have the answer ready, in good French as well.


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Quebec West):: May I ask the Government if Canada, as a member of the League of Nations, has been consulted regarding the occupation of certain German territory by France?


George Green Foster: That is a question that would require some consideration, and if my hon. friend cares to repeat it tomorrow I will endeavour to give him an answer.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I beg to remind the leader of the Government that about a week ago I put to him a question, the answer to which he promised in two or three days' time. That answer has not so far been given. The question I asked the leader of the Government was whether a Canadian had been appointed to represent this country in the next assembly of the League of Nations.
Hon. NEWTON" W. ROWELL:	In answer to my hon. friend, I may say that the Government has not yet appointed its representatives in the assembly of the League, the general meeting of the assembly not having yet been called. I think I can also answer the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent): The Government has not been consulted in reference to the occupation of German territory by France.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Shame.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The League of Nations
has nothing to do with it.


DOMINION HIGHWAY POLICY-CONTRIBUTION TO ONTARIO.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Sora Middlebro: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I should like to know from the Minister - of Railways whether the Government has paid any money to Ontario under the Dominion Highways Act. If so, has the Government of Ontario filed any plans for approval by the Railway Department, and are there any specifications or estimates in connection therewith?


John Dowsley Reid: In answer to my hon. friend, I may say he was kind enough to inform me that he intended asking this question, so I am prepared to answer it. The Dominion Government have not paid any money as yet to the Ontario Government on the Dominion Highway Policy. Plans have been filed for approval by the Railway Department. They were filed by the Hon. Mr. McDiarmid, Minister of Public Works, on September 3, 1919, and by the Hon. Mr. Biggs on March 6, 1920. The plans submitted by Mr. Biggs are now being considered by the Cofnmissioner of Highways and the Chief Engineer for submission to the Minister of Railways for his approval, as required by the Act, and until these are approved by the Minister of Railways as required by the Act no payments can be made. There were estimates and details and specifications submitted with the plans. The estimates wer,e for eighteen hundred miles, at an estimated cost of twenty-two million two hundred thousand dollars.


MEDALS FOR WAR SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: I desire to call the attention of the Government to a question which I had on the Order Paper and which was answered yesterday. The answer was given -I think by mistake-by the Minister of Naval Service. The question was in regard to the medals which are to be distributed to Canadian men for service overseas, and I think it should be answered by the Minister of Militia. I should like to ask permission therefore to have the question replaced on the Order Paper in order that I may be given full information on its subject-matter by the Minister of Militia and Defence. It is of great interest to all returned men throughout Canada to know what medal it is the intention of the Militia Department to award.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member requires no permission to place another question on the Order Paper so long as that question is in conformity with the rules of the House.


QUESTION ANSWERED BY THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac):: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to Question 68 appearing on yesterday's Order Paper which he apparently thought he was answering by his stereotyped statement, " it is not in the public interest." If the minister will study the question closely I think he will be convinced that this vague answer will not suffice.


John Dowsley Reid: I will look up the question, and if I consider that it requires any answer different from that which I have already given I shall be pleased to give any necessary information to the hon. gentleman.


GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank S. Cahill: May I ask the Minister of Railways whether the members of the board of arbitration on the purchase of the Grand Trunk have been appointed?


John Dowsley Reid: Not yet.


THE BUDGET.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: In view of the Acting Prime Minister's anxiety to push forward the business of the Government, may I ask the Minister of Finance when we may expect the Budget?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: I cannot yet answer that question.


NATURAL RESOURCES OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. A. CAMPBELL (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I have just read in Hansard a statement by the Acting Prime Minister in answer to my question regarding the transfer of natural resources. It is of course out of order for me to comment thereon now, but I would ask the right hon. minister if there is any reason why he should not give answers to numbers 5 and 6 of the series of questions in this connection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member has any complaint to make respecting the nature of an answer given to a question he ought to do so at another stage of the proceedings, either on a motion to go into supply, or when the House is in committee on the estimates of the department concerned. It is not competent for him op the Orders of the Day to analyse any answers given by members of the Government.


John Archibald Campbell: The question was not answered, Mr. Speaker, that is why I bring the matter up.


BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIANS.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called for the Third Reading of Bill No. 13, to provide for the settlement of differences between the governments of the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia respecting Indian lands and certain other Indian affairs in the said province:
Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: I rather think I promised the leader of the Opposition that this third reading would take place when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was present. Unless the leader of the Opposition is willing that the Bill be now .read the third time I move that the motion stand.
Motion stands.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT (Certificates of Service).
On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 21, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Certificates of Service), was read the third time and passed.


AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CORPORATION OF OTTAWA.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Public Works) moved the third reading of Bill-No. 22, to cbnfirm an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before this Bill is read the third time I desire to refer to a matter of which I spoke when we were in committee on the Bill. The minister brought forward an agreement to be approved by Parliament, and at the time informed the House that the contract

had already been signed with the city of Ottawa. I submit it would be more in accord with the rights of this house if, when a measure of this kind is before Parliament, the ministry would refrain from finally signing a contract until its terms are approved of by Parliament. If the ministry is going to sign contracts, as was done in the case of the merchant marine, without the consent of Parliament .so far as the terms of .those contracts are concerned, and without appropriations from Parliament for them, and, as in the present instance, sign an agreement two or three nights before the matter comes up for discussion in this House, the function of Parliament is reduced pretty much to that of a rubber stamp. I bring this matter up because I think the Government has fallen into the habit of doing everything by Order in Council, and ignoring Parliament in regard to the very matters which it is the duty of hon. members to discuss. I should like to utter a strong protest against this method of procedure and ask the ministry to follow it as little as possible in future.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case I think we have followed the procedure usually adopted when an agreement is being made such as was submitted to the House the other evening. I stated the other evening that the agreement was made subject to the vote being passed by the House. The agreement would have no force or effect unless the House passed the vote to pay the amount stated in the agreement. Therefore we are really submitting the agreement for the'approval of the House in that way. I had no intention of signing the agreement other than in the ordinary way in which it has been done for years past not only by this Government but by other Governments. If by Signing it I have varied from the procedure I am sorry, but I do not think I have. I thought it was carrying out exactly the policy as it has been carried out by previous Governments. The fact that we have to vote the amount in the Estimates should satisfy the House and settle the matter.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
CUSTOM'S AiCT AMENDMENT.
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Customs) Bill No. 31 to amend the Customs Act was read a second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister should explain the purpose of the Bill.	[DOT]


Martin Burrell: The Act requires permission to import fire-arms except from the United Kingdom, and this strikes out the words "except from the United Kingdom" in order to give the Government control over the disposition of all fire-arms brought into the country.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 35 to amend the Dominion Lands Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain?


Arthur Meighen: The House, on the introduction, had a brief explanation on the objects of the Bill. The rest will appear very clearly from the side notes to the Bill itself. The object of the first section is to enable a homesteader to get his patent though not naturalized, he being debarred from naturalization on account of inability to speak English or French. Provision was made last session to enable persons now debarred from naturalization to obtain patent to a homestead upon securing a certificate of qualification for naturalization barring certain recent statutory requisites. A judge could not give a certificate that a man was qualified to be naturalized unless he could speak English or French and unless the judge so certified. That does not seem to be quite fair to an applicant who entered for his homestead prior to such statutory provisions existing. Consequently, if that is the only reason why he should not be naturalized, we do not want it to stand in the way of his getting his patent. That is the object of the first section. The second section has to do with the same matter. The third Section provides for power in the case of school lands to enable the department to sell upon a valuation a portion of a quarter section or of a half section that may not have been included in the original sale but which later can be added. We now by statute must sell by auction. Cases, arise, for example, where a lake is in the land sold and as the lake recedes there is more land available. It does not seem the part of wisdom that that extra territory should be put up at auction because the only man to whom it is of any use is the man who owns the quarter sec-

tion. But we have no power to do otherwise. This section gives us power. While I am on my feet I beg to say that when the Bill goes into committee I do not propose to ask that it shall be taken out of committee at the present time because there are other amendments to the Dominion Lands Act which we find necessary and which will be embodied in a new Bill to be introduced. I hope to get the next Bill into committee and then consolidate the two Bills. But there seems to toe no reason why we should not go into committee to-day and go through the clauses of the present Bill.
Mr. McKEiNZIE: I noticed that the minister touched on an important question of law in connection with the receding of a lake. I presume the land came down to the lake at the time the land was sold. The common law is that if by accretion or otherwise there is more land in front of a man's property, or if the lake 'recedes, so much the better for the man who owns the land adjoining because he also owns the land caused toy the recession of the lake. If, on the other hand, the lake becomes larger and the water encroaches upon the man's property, he has to put up with it. He does not get any more land from the Government because the lake swelled up, or filled up, and took a piece off his property. The common law is that he has to give and take. If the lake recedes and he gets more land it is his land, whereas, if the lake encroaches and takes away his land, he has no recourse. I would like to know why that principle of common law is not followed in the west in connection with the sale of land adjoining waters.


Arthur Meighen: First of all, Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Hon. gentlemen must
not forget that the House is not yet in committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-disposal of unsold portion of school lands to be after valuation by official of department.


Arthur Meighen: Referring to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) I believe the common law is as he states. My only remark is that there is still a controversy as to whether land that is recovered from a lake by pressure, as distinguished by land that is recovered from a lake by recession of water, accrues to the
advantage of the riparian owner. There is a controversy, I know, as to that. But assuming the law is as the hon. gentleman states, and I believe it is, it does not apply in this case for the reason that the Department of the Interior in its sales defines by plan the lands sold. Wherever there is an accession to that land on account of water the plan is referred to in the patent and all the patentee gets is the land shown on that plan. If by accession there is more land added, then he is not entitled to that land and we wish the power to sell it to him because it is not a case where the suction system is applicable at all. There are other cases too. For example suppose a portion of land is required for a rifle range, or for other purposes of the Government, and afterwards that land is no longer required we desire the right to sell that to the owner of the rest of the land at a valuation to be fixed after inspection rather than by auction.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite understand that the boundaries named in a lease do not always define how much land a man may get. According to the English common law a man may take the boundaries of his land down to the edge of . a river but his ownership goes to the middle of the stream unless of course it is a very large body of water, as for example land bordering on the Great Lakes. I am not aware from the decisions of the courts whether there has been a definition as to how far that principle is carried, but it would be absurd to say in case of a man owning'land on the shores of lake Superior that his land goes to the middle of the lake. But in the case of a small lake or an ordinary sized river, although his land may be patented only to the edge of the river, under the decisions in the English courts his ownership extends to the centre of the stream. In the case of these lakes in the West it is a very nice question whether the Government could step in and cut him off from the water rights he has in any of those lakes because of course, the privilege with respeot to land going down to the water is of very great importance. If that water recedes you are depriving that man sometimes of the great advantage of having a water frontage, and is one of the principles of English law that you cannot take away a man's water frontage because the water has receded.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill does not take anything from anybody. If a case arose in which a man had a right to the accession of land, he already has that land and we

do not need to sell it to him. But we so word our patents that he does not nave that right. If we worded our patents so that a man was given all the land, say " west of the river Assiniboia in section so and so " then very probably the common law argument of our hon. friend would apply; he would own to the centre of the stream. But we do not so issue our patents. We prepare a plan and that plan shows just how far that man's land extends. We say that he is entitled to the land shown on that plan; and he is not entitled to any more. But it may be, however, as a result of the reasons which I have mentioned, that we can afterwards let him have that land. It may be that we do not need the rest of the land, or it may be that some of it becomes valuable because of recession, and consequently we wish the power to sell it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not for a
moment profess to say that this Bill takes land from anybody but I do maintain that if I sell a piece of land to a man facing upon the water that gives him the privilege to what is known as a natural highway.


Arthur Meighen: It depends on how the land was described in the conveyance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is where my hon. friend and myself differ. If in the deed the boundary goes to the edge of the water and there is a natural highway, such as a river or a tidal water in front of the land, that is supposed to be part of the valuation of the land and the privilege attaches to it and does not lie with the seller, because nature has mpde some changes, to take away the privilege which is attached to the land. If a man sells a piece of land opening upon navigable water he cannot afterwards cut off the privilege of using that navigable water. That is simply the common law.
Progress reported.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine) the House went into committee on the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend Part VII of the Canada Shipping Act, Chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, relating to Steamboat Inspection, and to provide:-
(1)	That Section 578, relating to rules and regulations of the Governor in Council, be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph :-
" (7i) for the establishment of a scale of fees and the collection thereof for examining plans of the hulls, boilers and machinery and

equipment, of steamboats; for the inspection of steamboats, their machinery and equipment, during construction; and for such like examinations or inspection in connection with the Steamboat Inspection Service."
(2)	That Section 643 be amended by omitting the amount specified therein as payable for duty, and providing that the Governor in Council may from time to time fix a duty to be paid yearly and every year by the owner or master of every steamboat registered in Canada ; and that the amount of such duty shall in each case be paid at such times and in such manner and to such officers as the Governor in Council may direct, and such duty shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
(3)	That Section 644 be amended to provide that no inspector shall make or deliver a certificate respecting any steamboat under Part VII unless it is established to his satisfaction that the fees and duty payable in respect to such steamboat for the current year have been paid, and he is satisfied by careful examination that all the conditions and requirements of the Act and of any regulations made thereunder have been fulfilled and complied with in respect to such steamboat; and that every inspector shall report to a chief officer of Customs any violation* of, or omissions to comply with the proposed legislation.
Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Mr. Chairman, the object of this resolution is to enable me to introduce a Bill to give the Governor in Council power to fix a scale of fees for the annual inspection of steam vessels in commission and for the inspection of steam vessels under construction. Under the law at present the- boilers, machinery and equipment of steamboats must be inspected once a year. (Prior to the war the work was not very heavy, but during the war the number of steamships greatly increased, and the inspection now costs the country $105,000 a year. No inspection charge whatever has been made since 1903, although the Governor in Council has power to charge a small sum of ten cents per ton for the inspection of steam vessels under British registry, the fees from this source amounting to only $3,200.
In these days of rigid economy the Government thought it well to introduce this resolution so that by levying these fees it might meet the expenditure which, as I have already stated, amounts to $105,000 a year. Unless this resolution is adopted and the Bill based upon it is passed, we will have to continue to inspect free of charge all steam vessels under construction and also all steamers in commission. In the Old Country a charge is made for such inspection, and I hope the committee will approve of the resolution and of the Bill based upon it in order that by levying these charges we may cover our expenditure in connection with this inspection.	*


Mr. DUFF:: Will the fees be set out in the Bill?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


William Duff: Will the hon. minister explain subsection 2, reading:
That section 643 be amended by omitting the amount specified therein as payable for duty, and so on.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Section 643 of the Shipping Act enables the Governor in Council to fix the amount of duty to be paid yearly and every year by the owner and master of every steamboat registered in Canada, not exceeding ten cents for every gross ton. That charge is too low and only applies to steamers under British registry. We shall amend this section so as to be able to levy duties which will raise our revenue from $3,200 a year to $105,000.
Mr. D-UFF: It seems-to me that perhaps "charge" Or "fee" would be preferable to "duty."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this apply to all
classes of steamers?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister be able to give us any idea of the scale of fees? In the case of a small tug boat engaged in towing around certain wharves it might be hardly worth while to exact any fees.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In the case of steam driven vessels under fifty tons there is no charge whatever. For a fifty ton non-passenger steam vessel the charge would be $15; from 50 to 100 tons, $25; from 100 to 150 tons, $30; from 150 to 200 tons, $35; from 200 to 300 tons,$45; from 300 to 500 tons, $55; from 500 to 700 tons, $75; from 700 to 1,000 tons, $110; from 1,000 to 2,000 tons, $135; over and above 2,000 tons and up to 10,000 tons, $50 for each additional 1,000 tons. The charge for passenger ships is $5 per ton higher.


William Duff: Is that per registered ton?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.
Mr. McKENZI/E: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in my province freight and passenger boats on regular runs receive very substantial aid from the Government by way of subsidies because their traffic earnings are not sufficient to justify a regular service. There is not much logic in handing to, a boat a subsidy with one hand and taking it away with the other by charging for the inspection of hulls, boilers and machinery. If the Government find that certain lines can-68
not get along without Government aid and that the country has any money to spare, all right; but these charges should not be made applicable to boats which are subsidized and which could not get along without that assistance.
Mr. BALLANTYNE.:	Since 1903 no
charges of this kind have been made upon Canadian registered vessels. But the increase in tonnage has been very great, and the work of the steamboat inspection branch of my department has largely increased. We have the chairman of the board, two chief inspectors at Ottawa, twenty-seven inspectors stationed at various ports, and twelve clerks. The administration of the branch is costing the country $105,000 a year. It is in the interests of public safety that these vessels be inspected during construction as well as while in operation, and it is hardly fair to ask the country to perform that inspection service without making any charge for it.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is a certificate of inspection in England recognized by the minister's department? Some years ago it was regarded by the Canadian inspectors as necessary that all Canadian boats should be subjected to Canadian inspection. But the ocean-going boats were frequently repaired in England and subjected to Lloyd's inspection over there, and when the captain returned with Lloyd's certificate of inspection he was liable to be called upon by the Canadian inspector to have a second inspection, with resulting delay and additional cost. I should like to be assured by the minister that the boats are not to be subjected to two inspections.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
William Duff: My hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) askes whether ships which have been inspected in England and which shortly afterwards came to Canada should be obliged to undergo Canadian inspection. It seems to me that this inspection should apply only to vessels under Canadian registry.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The inspection applies to all vessels coming into Canadian waters, (whether of British or of Canadian registry. We are now making a charge of 10 loents per ton for the inspection oif vessels which are under British registry; for those under Canadian registry no charge is made. If this resolution passes we shall increase the charge in respect of vessels under British registry to the tariff that I have stated, and the same tariff will apply to vessels of Canadian registry.
Resolution repotted and concurred in.
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 49, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Steamboat Inspection.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House aven't into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Pish Inspection Act, chapter forty-five of the Statutes of 1914, and to provide:-
(а)	that the said Act shall apply to pickled herring, ale-wives, mackerel, and salmon other than mild cured salmon, and the containers in which such fish are packed and marketed;
(б)	that the Governor in Council may order that the provisions of the said Act shall extend and apply to any other kinds of fish, whether pickled or not. and the containers in which such fish are packed and marketed; excepting, however, fish packed in cans or other hermetically sealed containers, and fish packed by fishermen or others for their own use and not for sale or intended to he used for any other commercial purpose;
(o) that regulations may be made by the Governor in Council prescribing the material to be used for containers of fish, the sizes of such containers, and how they shall be made and marked; and also how containers not in accordance with the requirements shall be dealt with; and prescribing the requirements as to the quality and weight of fish in the containers, and how and by whom containers in which fish are packed shall be marked; and, also, the time and place, and the manner in which containers and fish may be inspected, and how incorrectly marked fish shall be marked or re-marked.

(d)	that all containers used for packing shall be made and marked, and all fish shall be graded, packed and marked, in accordance with the regulations;
(e)	that all fish imported into Canada from other countries shall be packed in containers of a similar character and equal quality to those required under the proposed legislation; and shall be clearly marked with the kind, grade and weight of fish they contain, and with the name of the country of origin, provided that when such fish are imported into Canada for exportation it shall only be necessary that the container in which such fish are packed be marked, with the name of the country of origin;
(/) that with certain limitations an appeal to the minister may be made in case of dispute between an inspecting officer and the packer, owner or other person ;
(g) that inspectors shall have the right to enter upon any premises, vessel or boat for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act as amended;
(7t) that penalties may be imposed, and containers and fish forfeited and seized for violation of the Act or regulations; and
(4)	that the proposed legislation shall come into force with respect to fish caught on the Pacific coast on the first day of November, 1920, and with respect to fish caught on the Atlantic coast on the first day of April, 1921.
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On March 28, 1919, a similar resolution was introduced into this House and the Bill was afterwards referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries, but owing to the1 resolution not being introduced until late in the session the standing committee last year did not have time to consider the legislation fully, and it was therefore held over. It is my intention after the second reading of the Bill to refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries, and I desire now only to say that there has been a general request made upon the department to have the inspection of pickled fish made compulsory instead of voluntary. The Canadian Fisheries Association, for example, have passed a resolution urging the department to make the inspection compulsory, and a large number of packers, as well as the Commissioner of Fisheries for British (Columbia, have asked for legislation along this line. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by referring to the great fisheries of Canada, dealt with so ably and eloquently a few nights ago by my hon. friend (Mr. Duff). Suffice it to say that if Canadians who are engaged in the fishing industry desire to make the fish of Canada more popular than at present, and want a wider market, it seems to me the inspection of fish ought to be compulsory instead of voluntary. That applies also to the containers of fish. I think it is wise that standards should be adopted


William Duff: As the minister intends after the second reading of the Bill to refer it to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries I shall reserve any remarks which I may have to make until that time, except to say that the Select Standing Committee last year did give this matter some attention, and I think they realized it required a great deal of consideration. I have given this matter much thought for a great number of years, but personally I have not yet been able to see how it is practically possible properly to grade pickled fish. I can understand how dried and canned fish can be properly graded, but I do not see how it can be done in the case of pickled fish. I think the minister is quite right in referring the matter to the Select Standing Committee, where perhaps hon. members will give us information which may lead to the framing of regulations which will be to the benefit of the fisheries.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is one phase of this compulsory inspection which I should like to bring to the minister's attention. I can readily understand that large concerns putting up great quantities of fish might be in favour of compulsory inspection. Fish comes to them from different parts and they have a large number of boats out fishing and bringing fish in to their stations. But in many parts of the country there are small fishermen. Many a man fishes alone, and makes a living that way. He furnishes his own salt and barrels, and he and his father before him have had a certain market perhaps for forty or fifty years. They put up the fish themselves, take it to the nearest railway station or steamboat, and send it off to their old customers. These men never see an inspector. They catch their fish, bring it ashore in the morning, and do the best they can to have it cleaned and packed and salted before it is spoilt by the sun. By the evening it is headed and put away in the barrels ready to ship. Perhaps these men are twenty or a hundred miles away from the nearest inspector. What is going to happen if these fishermen have to leave their fish exposed until an inspector comes from some distant part to examine it? Take my own province. If a man in the northern part of the\ county which I represent, and which is full of fishermen, has to send his fish to Halifax, to be subject to inspection there, he may send what he regards as No.
1 fish, in first class condition, but some person who is disposed to cut down the grade from No. 1 to No. 2, and consequently cut down his price, will throw that fish out 68*
of the barrels, inspect it, and grade it perhaps No. 2 or No. 3 instead of No. 1. The fisherman is not present at the inspection to protect his interests, and a great hardship would be inflicted on the man who heretofore has been able to look after his fish and sell a good article. My own county has a coast line of from 100 to 150 miles, dotted with fishing villages. These men have been catching fish for years, and no complaint has been made against their fish, so far as I know. I want to impress upon the minister as strongly as I can that if all these small fishermen are to have their catch subject to inspection, not only will it be a great hardship to them, but it will be practically impossible for the minister to do it, unless he has a whole army of inspectors. I am sure that is true of other parts of the country, but I am speaking of my own county because I know the conditions there. Unless the minister is prepared to have an inspector in every village in the Maritime Provinces where fish is caught, it will be extremely difficult to carry out these regulations, and they wall work a great hardship to the men engaged in fishing.
I also wish to refer to another phase, and that is with reference to fish coming from foreign countries to Canada, which is subject to re-inspection here, and which has to be packed in containers complying with the regulations in this country. So far as these regulations are concerned, I suppose fhat Newfoundland would be regarded as a foreign country, and that fish coming from there to Canada would be reinspected and re-graded. That would be imposing a hardship upon the fishermen of Newfoundland, as well as upon those who purchase their fish. It is a new departure, and would prove very embarrassing. A great deal of herring and mackerel comes to our ports from Newfoundland and stands on our wharves perhaps a week awaiting shipment to Boston, or to the interior by rail. So far there has been no interference with this trade at all. The fish and the barrels were satisfactory to the shippers and satisfactory to the consignees. If in the future it is to be the rule that the fish will be dumped out of these barrels and inspected and be subject to condemnation, it will be putting restrictions upon this trade between Newfoundland and Canada and will affect outside ports as well, and I think it will prove very embarrassing. So far as I know there has been no particular demand from the public for this legislation. These are certain phases which

I should like the minister to consider carefully and which, of course, will receive the consideration of the Committee when the Bill is referred to them. I think it would be still better, however, if the Bill were so drafted as to meet the points which I have endeavoured to place before the Committee this afternoon.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In answer to my
hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) I would point out that under the voluntary system of inspection our inspectors have to go wherever they are called. If this resolution and the Act based upon it carry, it is not the intention of the department to have an army of inspectors to cover our long coast line. We do not intend to incur any more expense than we meet at present. Our inspectors will work at the principal points and not at the curing or packing establishments at all. If this measure is adopted standards will be established and the inspectors of my department will go to the principal points where the fish is assembled and inspect samples of that fish as well as the packages. If these samples and packages do not comply with the statute the fish may be rejected. If the fish happens to be up to standard, but the .packages are not, the fish in that case will also be liable to rejection. The Bill also provides that fish coming from other countries to Canada shall be subject to its terms.


William Stevens Fielding: The object o{ the Bill is one which I am sure we can all approve of, especially in respect to the export trade. Wherever the products of Canada are to be offered in foreign markets it would be decidedly advantageous to have them guaranteed by official inspection. But, as remarked by the hon. member for Lunenburg and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the matter is fraught with difficulty. As to requiring inspection of fish coming in from other countries, such for instance as Newfoundland, I think it is but reasonable that if Canadian fish is to be submitted to inspection we should in like manner require similar inspection of the imported article. To allow Canadian fish to be subject to inspection and Newfoundland fish to be sold in Canada w'ithout inspection would be manifestly unfair. As pointed out by the hon. members to whom I have referred, where there are so many little sections all along our coast engaged in the fishing business you are likely to have considerable difficulty in reaching each one for inspection. I

.quite appreciate the object which the minister has in view, and the only suggestion I have to offer is that, when he refers the *Bill to the Committee, some time be allowed and some pains be taken to distribute copies of it among people who have a practical knowledge of the fishing business throughout Canada.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Ballantyne thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 50, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to
inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in the resolution adopted by this House approving of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, signed at Neuilly-sur-Seine on the 27th day of November, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, by filling up the blank therein with the words "Senate and."


CIVIL SERVICE INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton, Minister of Finance, the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act so as (a) to authorize the insurance of persons in the Naval Service ; (ib) to increase the maximum of insurance that may be issued from $5,000 to $10,000 ; and (c) to empower the Governor in Council to make regulations providing for the payment of tire insurance money as an annuity for a term of years certain or for the life time of the beneficiary or beneficiaries or otherwise.
William Duff: In view of all that we have heard during the last few weeks in regard to the navy, and the statement by the Government that we have no permanent naval policy, I do not see why this resolution should be introduced at this time to arrange for the insurance of persons in the naval service,-a service that really does not exist. It is true we have some landlubbers around Halifax and British Columbia, but we have no real naval service, and this resolution is therefore rather premature.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Bill has
nothing to do directly with the naval ser-

vice, although those word's occur incidentally. The Bill is an exceedingly simple one. Some twenty-six years ago the House determined to insure its civil servants on premiums which would be self-supporting, and the business of insurance then started, having been carried on ever since. The scheme carries itself, and now has its reserves, so that if it were under a private company the company would be in a position to carry on business properly. The object of the Bill is simply to make the provision capable of greater use by civil servants. The original Bill merely covered civil and military employees, and while as a matter of fact some naval employees have been carried under the scheme, it has been pointed out that strictly speaking the benefits of insurance are entirely removed from the naval service. There are still some people who are classified as coming under the naval service, and I do not suppose that hon. gentlemen will say that they ought not to get the benefit of the insurance scheme, whether they be many or few. That is the first amendment. The second amendment is as to the * amount of the policy. The present limitation is $5,000, which was established in 1914. Before that there was a smaller limitation. In 1914 the amount of insurance in force was $1,564,000; to-day the amount in force is $8,102,000. The present proposition is to allow insurance to be written to the extent of $10,000 in place of the former limit of $5,000. The inspector says that a large number of Civil Service employees have made application for an increase and he is confident that policies to the number of 100 or more will be written when the limitation is removed. The third change is simply one which will enable the insured to have the amount of the loss paid not in a lump sum to the beneficiary but so that the beneficiary will be put in such a position that he cannot waste or lose the money by a provision which will enable the Government to pay the insurance in the way of an annuity. There is one thing which I think the committee will be pleased to hear and that is that during the period of the war this fund carried the insurance of all the civil servants who enlisted without raising their rates, paid *150,000 in discharge of war claims, came through the influenza epidemic of last year which of course was very expensive, costing over $48,000, and is still in a healthy and self-supporting condition.


William Duff: I take it that this insurance is really 'or civil servants in the Fisheries Department, the Naval Department and in other branches of the inside service.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And the outside too.


William Duff: It would not include men in the naval service, or on ships such as the Niobe or the Rainbow?
Sir HENRY DRAYTON- I do not know why not.


William Duff: Would it include sailors
and firemen?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would include everybody if permanent.


William Duff: All the employees of the
Government?


Henry Lumley Drayton: All the permanent employees of the Government as, I understand it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we'
should have some statement as to whether the Government intends to have a permanent naval service and to encourage the men to take out insurance in consequence of being members of the naval service.


Georges Henri Boivin: The question which the hon. gentleman puts as to the policy of the Government concerning the establishment of a permanent naval service would not be in order on this resolution. This resolution is presented by the Minister of Finance for a specific purpose and while I considered it was in order to permit the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) to put a question concerning the existing naval service, I hope the matter will not be further discussed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I confess I see some difficulty in supporting the resolution as it stands without knowing what the intention of the Government is. That is fundamental to the discussion of this resolution. I do not wish to open any discussion on the point the chairman has raised, but I do think there is a very serious question involved. The Minister of Finance has mentioned that some members of the naval service already have insurance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so, but I am not quite sure on that point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One thing we know) however, is that the greater number of the naval officials have been summarily-dismissed by the Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne). If these men have been dismissed and if they have taken out in* surance what position are they in?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They will not be prejudiced at all. The idea of the scheme is to cheapen insurance to our employees-

* One of the large expenses of life insurance is 'to pay the commission to get insured and 'that costs nothing under this arrangement; ;it is insurance at cost. There is no provision for withdrawing the insurance from any person who is dismissed or leaves the Government service. A person would have the right to go on and pay his premiums just the same as if he had continued in the service and he would also have the right, if he wished to discontinue his premiums, to have a paid up policy for whatever it might be worth. It might be that by losing his employment with the Government he could not afford to continue to pay his insurance premiums. As far as the naval service is concerned, the hon. gentleman will see that we are bound to have some people engaged in naval work whether we have an extended or restricted policy or whether we have no policy at all. We are hound to look after our fisheries. The only matter that is in doubt at all is as to whether a comparatively few should get the benefit of this insurance, because there are only a few, and there seems to be no reason why the right of insurance should be taken from them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The main purpose of the resolution is highly commendable. It is really to give added advantages to the members of the Civil Service and probably thereby to make more permanent the staff of the Civil Service by affording this provision against adversity. In view of what the minister has said I shall not press the point I raised a few minutes ago.


William Stevens Fielding: The idea of our passing the Civil Service Insurance Act was not to [DOT]compete with the insurance companies; it was to provide a moderate amount of insurance such as the ordinary civil servant might hope to be able to take out at a low *eO'Sit-a very commendable object. But my hon. friend is now undertaking to engage in competition with the insurance companies by raising the insurance limit to ten thousand dollars. If the original idea of providing a moderate amount of insurance at a low rate for civil servants has been departed from, I do not see why there should be any limit at all. Once you get away from the principle that there should be a moderate amount of life insurance provided for civil servants at a low cost I do not see why It should have any limit at all. I question the wisdom of enlarging the amount to $10,000, especially when it brings you into competition with the regular insurance companies. I do not
,(8ir Henry Drayton.]
think there is any great need of it. If a man can afford to take out $10,000 insurance policy, there is no injustice in letting him go to an insurance company and making the best arrangement he can. I do not think we are obliged, in view of the original idea underlying this policy, to make provision for a $10,000 insurance policy.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I agree very
largely with what the hon. gentleman says. There is no doubt that the whole idea was to look after our own people, where they ought to be looked after, rather than to compete with the life insurance companies. But 1 would like to give the hon. gentleman this thought: I doubt very much whether there is very much greater protection given to a family, with the cost of living as it is, when the limit is made at $10,000 in this year than there was when the limit was $5,000 in 1914. At any rate that is the idea which I have, and the reason why I think the ten thousand should be left, why we should have that limit, is to be found in the right hon. gentleman's remarks. We are continuing on the former basis. We are not going into the business generally, but we are trying to bring this protection up to the same limit practically in which Parliament left it in 1914.


William Stevens Fielding: If you are going to adopt that principle generally and have two dollars for one everywhere it is a pretty large and far-reaching principle.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would hope
not.


William Stevens Fielding: You might be able to reach the salaries of ministers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have got
to look upon the question of the Civil Service in a somewhat different light. We have been giving the civil servants bonuses and doing what we reasonably could to make the public service attractive. We are accused of not making it sufficiently attractive, and it has been pointed out in that connection that there have been retirements and resignations from the public service. Perhaps this is one of the things which will make the service a little more attractive than it otherwise would be. As far as the two dollars referred to are concerned, I only wish it were within my power to deal with the question that the right hon. gentleman has raised.	[DOT]
Resolution reported, read a second time and concurred in.


PEACE WITH BULGARIA.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved the second reading of Bill No. 46 for carrying into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and Bulgaria.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that while this Bill has been printed it does not appear to have been distributed.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand it has
been distributed. It'is exactly in the same form as the Act which was passed last session ratifying the Treaties of Peace with Germany and Austria.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to proceeding with the Bill other than that I do not believe members of the House are in possession of copies of it.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of a Bill of such vast importance as this we should not depart from the rules of the House. Has it been printed in English and French?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: That is very satisfactory.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-the Governor in Council to make such dispositions as may be necessary to carry out the Treaty:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to ask the minister whether he contemplates that it will be necessary for the Governor in Council to make any' appointment, or to establish any office, or to pass any Order in Council in connection with this particular Treaty. If so, what particular appointment, or office or Order in Council does he expect will be necessary.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friends will see that the Treaty deals with the question of debts and property-not only tangible property but property rights in the enemy country and in our own. There are debts due by Canadian nationals to Bulgarian nationals, and by Bulgarian nationals to Canadian nationals, and the Treaty provides a method by which these debts shall be liquidated or adjusted. Provision is made in this Treaty, just as in the Treaties with Germany and Austria, for two methods of dealing with the liquidation of these debts. One is the establishment of a Clearing Office. The other is the liquidation, under process of law, subject to the provisions of the Treaty. If a Clearing Office is decided upon either of two courses may be adopted for its establishment:	Canada
could establish a Clearing Office herself under the terms of the Treaty, or a Clearing Office may be established for the whole British Empire, Canada coming in under its provisions and a branch being established in this country which, so far as Bulgaria is concerned, would be but a branch of the British Empire Clearing Office, but as between ourselves and Great Britain, would be the Canadian section of the Clearing Office. If the Government decides under the terms of the Treaty, to exercise the option given for liquidating these debts through Clearing Offices in the two countries, it would be necessary to establish either the general Clearing Office or the branch Clearing Office under the provisions of the Treaty. Then with regard to appointments, if the two Clearing Offices are unable to adjust the debts due by the nationals of one country to the other, provision is made in the Treaty for referring the matter to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal which adjudicates upon these disputed claims. Provision is made that each government concerned shall appoint a representative who shall attend the sittings of this tribunal in order to supervise the claims that may be presented on behalf of its nationals and while any national having a claim to prosecute before this tribunal may be represented there by his own counsel, the presentation of the claim of the nationals will be generally supervised by the representative of the government of the country interested. That would be an appointment to be made under the terms of the Treaty.
Then in reference to Orders in Council; In the liquidation of enemy debts, and in the disposition of enemy property and in other matters, very large powers are given under the Treaty which would require express legislative authority to exercise if general authority was not given to the Government under this Bill to deal with these matters by Order in Council. To illustrate: If the Clearing House proposal is adopted, each government agrees to prohibit its own nationals from dealing directly with the nationals of the other in adjusting these claims. That could only be done by legislation. Were not the prohibition sanctioned by legislation, then the moment peace is declared a national in one country might treat with a national in the other country in the adjustment of their respective claims.

Then in connection with the liquidation of enemy property in this country, legislation may also be necessary to authorize and carry into effect that liquidation. As a matter of convenience-in view of the different conditions and different sets of circumstances that may arise-it was considered desirable in Canada under the German and Austrian Treaties, as it was also considered desirable in Great Britain, to give the Government power to deal with all these matters by Order in Council so that specific provision might be made to meet the particular conditions which might arise under these Treaties. We are providing for the same procedure under this Treaty. I think I have given my hon. friend illustrations of how it may be necessary to establish offices, to appoint representatives and to pass Orders in Council.


William Stevens Fielding: Subsection 3 of section 1 provides that "any expense necessary in carrying out the said Treaty shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament." How are they to be provided?


Newton Wesley Rowell: By vote of this Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: We put through a Bill n; this character last year, and we now discover that the Government paid $65,000- not out of a vote for this purpose, but out oi a vote headed Demobilization. What demobilization has got to do with this Heaven only knows. I am amazed that the Government were permitted by the Auditor General to pass such an item. If it was submitted to the Department of Justice, and they said it was all right, we of course have got to how to their ruling. I have asked for a return, which I have not yet received, but in the absence of any explanation it strikes me as extraordinary that the Government should have taken that course of financing those expenses.


An hon. MEMBER:: High financing.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The return my hon. friend has asked for will be brought down at once in connection wtih the payment of the expenses of the League of Nations. If my hon. friend will turn up the vote on the Bill last year relating to demobilization, he will see the purposes defined to which the money may be applied, and I am advised that the Department of Justice and the Auditor General were both of the opinion that the expenditure came clearly within the purview of the legislation vote for demobilization purposes. The money was needed, there was an appropriation under which

we were advised it could be properly paid, and we therefore paid it to meet the request of the League of Nations.


William Stevens Fielding: The plea that the money is needed is very often put forward by persons who take that which they should not properly have. I venture to say that when the corresponding Bill went through this House no one understood that it meant anything else than that a specific vote would be asked for that purpose. I can only say that if the money was taken as the minister states, demobilization, like charity, covers a multitude of sins.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister intend in regard to this matter to get whatever appropriation may be necessary out of some general demobilization vote, or will he ask for a specific vote?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not know that the question is relevant, but as a matter of fact the money cannot be taken out of the demobilization vote of last year, for that lapsed on the 31st of March, and the demobilization vote for the present year, as embodied in the Estimates brought down, does not cover this expense. Therefore it would be necessary to have a specific vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps when we deal with this matter again the minister will have before him the particular language which, he says, gave power to take money out of the demobilization fund to meet expenses in connection with the League of Nations. Then, although we do not belong to the Department of Justice, we may be allowed to bring our common sense to bear on the construction of that language, and if in our judgment such a use of the money was not justified, we will have the privilege of differing from the Department of Justice and the hon. minister.
Are we still at war with Germany, Austria, Turkey and Bulgaria, or with any of them? It is important that we should know exactly when the war ceased, because our Naturalization Act of last year provides that ten years from the cessation of war an alien will have an opportunity of applying for naturalization. Therefore it is important for that class of citizens to know exactly when the period of ten years begins to run.
Mr. ROW1ELL: I will first deal with the position so far as Bulgaria is concerned, then I will answer my hon. friend in reference to the other countries. The Treaty with Bulgaria provides that it shall come into force when ratifications have been de-

posited by Bulgaria and by three of the principal Allied and Associated Powers and when the Treaty comes into force a state of peace is established between the Allied and Associated Powers which have ratified the Treaty and Bulgaria. It will come into force with respect to each of the other nations party to the Treaty upon the date upon which they deposit their respective ratifications. Within the last ten days we have received information from the British Government that they desired that the Bulgarian Treaty should be ratified. We advised them that it had been approved by the House of Commons and we expected approval by the Senate this week, and that so soon as such approval was given Canada would consent to ratification. That consent was given to-day by the passing of an Order in Council requesting His Majesty to approve and ratify the Treaty in respect of the Dominion of Canada.
We became at peace with Germany on the 10th of January last when the ratifications of .the Treaty of Peace were deposited at Paris by Germany and by three of the principal Allied Powers

in fact ratifications were deposited by eight or ten Powers-so that the condition upon which the Treaty was to go into effect was complied with on that date.
The Treaty of Peace with Austria has not yet been ratified, so far as we have been advised, and therefore is not yet in force. It has been approved, I believe, by all portions of the British Empire, but three of the principal Allied and Associated Powers have not so far ratified the Treaty.
My hon. friend referred to Turkey. The Treaty of Peace with that country has not yet been finally settled. As a matter of fact the Treaty has not yet been submitted to the Turkish plenipotentiaries. I believe it is anticipated that it will be submitted at a very early date.


William Stevens Fielding: Another Treaty was at one time submitted to this House, the Treaty between Great Britain, France and the United States, for the protection of France against a possible attack by Germany. Are we parties to that Treaty in any way?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it does not apply to us unless we give our express assent thereto, and Canada has not so far given her assent.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should we not be asked to give our assent to that Treaty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That Treaty does not go into effect unless it is approved also by the United States. The United States has not so far approved it, and it will he time enough for us to take action when it appears that there is some prospect of the Treaty going into effect.


William Stevens Fielding: We must wait for guidance from Washington?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, not at all. The condition has not arisen upon which that Treaty is to go into effect. It is therefore not necessary for us to decide on the action we should take until that condition is complied with.


William Stevens Fielding: A good many years
ago a very distinguished public man in this country was called " Look-to-Wash-ington McDougall." We shall have to describe another public man as looking to Washington.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is sensitive and touchy about all these Treaty matters and takes advantage of every favourable opportunity so to express himself. But this Government cannot be accused of not properly looking after Canada's interests. I am sure that even my hon. friend will admit that.


Georges Parent: How many other Treaties are we expected to ratify?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Does my hon. friend
refer to approval of Treaties by the Houke?


Georges Parent: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Government have
indicated that it is their policy to submit to the House for approval, of all the Treaties of Peace with enemy powers. If the House is in session, that certainly will be done. To illustrate, should the House prorogue before the Treaty of Peace with Turkey is concluded, the Government would have to decide whether they would be justified in withholding approval pending another session of Parliament, or whether in view of the fact that the other Treaties had been approved by the House they should take the responsibility of approving without consulting Parliament. But that condition has not arisen; I hope that it will not arise. We may have the Turkish Treaty before us this session. There will be a Treaty of Peace with Hungary, when it is finally signed and available for submission.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.

After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister give any forecast as to when present conditions as between Canada and the various nations which were at war with us will come to an end, so that we may know when our Naturalization Act will come into effect, and the ten year period mentioned in the Franchise Act begin to run? Would the minister also tell us just what stage the Hungarian Treaty has reached?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the information as nearly as I can with reference to the Hungarian Treaty. It was submitted some time ago to the Hungarian plenipotentiaries, and Hungary made a reply asking for certain modifications. To that the Allied Powers made answer and fixed a time for Hungary to sign the Treaty. I am not aware that Hungary has signed so far; my impression is that she has not. At the present time, I think, the Treaty simply awaits signature by Hungary.


Mr. JACOBS:: I do not know whether I am in order if I ask the minister in connection with this matter now before the House if the Canadian Government had any intimation from the British Government or Viscount Grey with regard to the letter which appeared in the London Times some time ago respecting the reservations being discussed by the United States Senate. I think that question is germane to the matter now before the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am sorry that 1 cannot agree with the hon. member. He must remember that we are in Committee of the Whole, -and that according to rule the debate must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. I must rule the question out of order.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is not that rule more honoured in the breech than in the observance? .


Georges Henri Boivin: I now agree with the hon. member but I hope the committee will not consider that it is the fault of the chairman.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do I understand that from now on the rule is going to be strictly and rigidly observed?


Georges Henri Boivin: I hope the committee will observe it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Mr Rowell.]
On the preamble:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I asked the minister before recess if it would not be possible for him to let us see the statute or regulation under which that $60,000 was paid out in connection with the League of Nations.


Georges Henri Boivin: This is another question which is not in order, but .with the unanimous consent of the committee, it may be put.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My answer would simply be that it is in the statutes of last year. I have not got the statutes here.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The preamble is very, very important. I find by the preamble that the Treaty has already been ratified on the part of Canada. What further necessity, therefore, is there to ratify the Treaty if it has already been ratified, as the preamble leads us to believe?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend misunderstands the object of the legislation. The legislation is not to ratify the Treaty, but it is to give the Government power to carry it into effect. Secondly, my hon. friend misunderstands the preamble. It does not say that the Treaty has been ratified, but that it has been submitted to both Houses of Parliament.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Perhaps I had better read it:
Whereas, at Neuilly-sur-Seine, on the twenty-seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, a copy of which has been laid before each House of Parliament, was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiary therein named.
The plenipotentiary named in the Protocol is The Honourable Sir George Halsey Perley, K.C.M.G., High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom." So. I think I was right in saying that the Treaty had been signed on behalf of Canada.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend before did not say "signed"; he said "ratified." The Treaty has been signed on behalf of Canada, but it must be ratified as a subsequent and substantive act, which gives it validity and brings it into force.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Then do I understand that when a plenipotentiary of a country signs a Treaty the Treaty does not have effect until the Parliament of that country, if it has a parliament, ratifies the Treaty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The signing does not give it legal effect unless it so appears from the

Treaty. The almost invariable rule is that treaties do not contain any such provision, but they do contain a provision providing for ratification, and the Treaty becomes effective and binding on the nation concerned when it is ratified, and not until it is ratified. The method of ratification for each country depends upon its own constitution, and upon its own constitution and the attitude of the government depends whether the Treaty is submitted to the legislative assembly or parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not the King the only one with authority to ratify the Treaty? Parliament may approve it, but is not ratification the act of the Sovereign?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the British Empire it is the act of the Sovereign; in the United States it is the act of the President and the Senate.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is not the logical sequence of that answer, that we have no rights whatever in this matter, if it is the King that ratifies for the British Empire?


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: We are assuming, of
*course, that this extraordinary course is due to some emergency.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point *out to the hon. member tnat there is nothing extraordinary in the course taken. The house may decide to give third reading at once to any Bill which has not been amended in Committee and which is not a Money Bill.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I bow to your ruling, Sir, but it has been the practice of this House that the third reading is given by the .unanimous consent of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: Unanimous
-consent is only required for the exceptions mentioned.


DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 26, consideration in Committee of Bill No. 12, respecting the Election of Members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise.-Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 12-conveyance of electors to polls, etc., for hire forbidden.
Charles Arthur Gauvreau: In justice to the translators, may I he allowed to say a few words in connection with Clause 2?


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member can refer to Clause 2 only by unanimous consent of the 'Committee.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Then I would ask the House to give me an opportunity to say something on behalf of the translators.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the unanimous
wish of the Committee that the hon. member have leave to reveit to Clause 2?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am afraid that, while discussing Clause 2 of the Bill I did not do adequate justice to the translators. If you refer to the English version of the Bill you will see that the subsections are enumerated alphabetically, and when the translation was made the translators desired to follow the same course, but this was not done. Afterwards the French version was also made alphabetical. This is the reason why, at first, there did not seem to be any concordance between the English and the. French versions. I desire to place this explanation before the Committee, and particularly to bring it to the attention of the minister so that the translators may be free from reproach in the discharge of their duty.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall Clause 12 carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is understood that we are to take up only noncontroversial clauses this evening.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: That is correct.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is Clause 12 the same as the old law?


Hugh Guthrie: Clause 12 is an adaptation of Clauses 270 and 271 of the former Act. There is a little change in the language, but speaking generally I think the meaning is practically the same.


Mr. MORPHY:: This is to my mind a
clause more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It is a time-honoured clause which has tended more or less to bring about the very thing which it aims to correct, namely, corruption in the dealings of candidates with voters in their conveyance to the poll. I do not suppose that there is an hon. gentleman in this House who has had experience in election matters but who will agree with me that this particular clause carries with it the very

principles that lead to hypocrisy, chicanery and fraud. In these days of long distances .it is often difficult to get voters to the poll, especially over roads that are bad; and it is often hard to get them over long distances on boats. Now what is the practice? A man will say to his friend, Tom, Jack, or Bill; "I can't promise to pay you anything for your conveyance to bring six or seven voters from one place to another." But the other fellow winks and there is a definite understanding between the two that while Tom, Jack or Bill, as the case may be, declares that he will volunteer his services he does not in reality give them gratis. That is the common practice, and what is the good of getting around it and saying it is not so? I think that nearly every hon. gentleman knows that this is the common understanding in the country, so that this clause is really a vehicle for the introduction of hypocritical practice in the conduct of elections, and it has a tendency to lower the moral standards of the electorate and those who seek election. To my mind, if this clause were eliminated altogether it would have a tendency to elevate rather than lower the standard of election practices. I think the clause is obsolete. It does not cover practices of extreme corruption, if there is such corruption. The offences in connection with this clause are trivial, but the clause involves a principle which has the effect of weakening the moral tone of the electorate, and I do not think it is worth while retaining. It would be better out of the Act.
iMr. RETEIR McOIBBON:	It was my
privilege the other night to oppose the adopi tion of this clause, and I would ask the minister to cut it out. In the interests of the electors, the candidates and the Government, the minister would be well advised to leave it out of the Bill.


Mr. J. R. WILSON:: While this clause may not have been altogether lived up to in past elections, still if we were to eliminate it we would, II think, make it possible for the man with the longest pocketbook to be elected. I think we should construct our election law in such a way as to enable the poor man to have an equal opportunity with the wealthy man of being elected to Parliament.


Samuel William Jacobs: Hear, hear.


James Robert Wilson: Moreover, if you did leave this clause out there would be greater possibility of bribery or the buying of votes 
than if it were retained. I therefore think it would be better not to eliminate this clause
Mr. JACOBS; I think I misunderstood the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon when I said "Hear, hear" to what he said. I take the exactly opposite view, and contend that if this clause were allowed to remain in it would work against the poor man and in favour of his more wealthy opponent. Let us take the case of a wealthy candidate who, we will suppose, has not been in politics before and who consequently has some means. He has at his disposal some half a dozen automobiles in his private garage-limousines,	runabouts, touring cars, etc.-and he has a number of friends in the same position, because wealth usually likes to associate with wealth. In that way, the wealthier candidate, the automobile millionaire, would have any number of vehicles at his disposal, while neither the poor man nor his friends could boast such conveyances. Probably all they would have would be wheel-barrows, and it would hardly be possible to bring voters to the poll in such vehicles. This section of the Act is therefore going to operate against the candidate of more modest means while it will favour the wealthier man who seeks election. For that reason II ask that it be eliminated.


Mr.   McM@: ASTER:	Before the clause
carries I would like to task whether an amendment of the Franchise law by which a man who did not exercise his franchise or present himself at the polls would be penalized either by disfranchisement at a subsequent election, or even by a fine. In Belgium, they have compulsory voting. Has the minister considered that matter,- because it is well worth considering whether the enactment of compulsory voting might not eliminate a large number of the ways in which money is, or has been, illegally spent at elections.
Mr. GUTHRIE; I do not know that the question arises in regard to this clause, but I say that the subject has received consideration by the Government. While there is a great deal to be said in favour of the proposal of my hon. friend, the Government has not seen fit, up to the present moment at all events, to introduce so radical a change in our election law. It may be that, as the Bill progresses and as discussion takes place upon that phase of the matter, the Government may receive new light on the subject. The time has not

passed for suggestions, and when we come to a more appropriate occasion I would like to hear the views of the House upon that question. In the meantime the Act as drawn does not provide for compulsory voting.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would like to hear from the Acting 'Solicitor General what his views are upon the objections made to the clause, if he has any.


Hugh Guthrie: The Government view
is that the clause should pass as it stands. It is set out in the statute as a safeguard. It is older than Confederation. It is nothing but the old legislation of United Canada. I will grant that there may he very many breaches of this enactment at a general election, but I think the provision will serve a good purpose and I believe it is better to have a restrictive clause of this kind than to permit the door to be wide open. I believe, with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Wilson), that if no such clause as this were upon the statute book, the rich candidate would have a tremendous advantage over the poor one. I could understand a rich candidate, reckless of his expenditure, deliberately hiring every conveyance and motor car in the neighbourhood while the poor man could not meet him because he could not pay the price. I think it is a reasonable safeguard.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be a pity to strike it out. I agree with the view of the Acting Solicitor General. I have thought sometimes that if a sensible clause could be drawn it might be possible to allot to each polling booth a certain number of teams in proportion to the number of voters. Something of that sort would , possibly get around the abuse. However, I have nothing ready to propose along that line. But I quite agree that, bad as the present situation is, we certainly would fare worse if we. had no restrictive clause. I will stand by the clause although I prefer to see something in the way of an amendment if I oould put it in shape.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: I agree with the hon. member (Mr. J. R. Wilson) that to strike out this clause would be to take a very great step backwards. Every man in the (House who has run three or four elections knows very well that if we had not this clause it would leave the door wide open to a wealthy man to hire all the automobiles and liveries in the municipality. Some of us had the experience in the last election of men going around, engaging every hall and monopolizing the situation
in that way because they had money in abundance. I had hoped that this Bill would go still farther. I would make it absolutely illegal for any man to contribute toward a campaign fund. My opinion is that if we made it illegal to contribute towards a campaign fund, did away with the deposit and left the field wide open- a fair field and no favour-it would be better than trying to throw such safeguards as this around an election. By doing so you are making it harder for the average man to do what he has a right to do-aspire to become a candidate for Parliament. I hope that before we get through hon. members will give that and other clauses their serious *consideration. As far as the $200 deposit is concerned I would strike it out and I would make it illegal to contribute to a campaign fund either as an individual or through a corporation. These are the things that lead to corruption. If there were no campaign funds there would be very little corruption.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about the Farmer's party?


John Albert Sexsmith: It would be just in
the same position as all the other parties. They would not be going around with their hat and their basket gathering money from door to door. It is a disgraceful thing. When you read in the newspapers about organizations being created and when you have them, as they did in this province during the last provincial campaign and as I understand they are doing in the West, going from door to door and soliciting money to pay campaign expenses; I repeat it is a disgraceful proposition.


Mr. M. CLARK:: How would you get
the money-behind the door?


John Albert Sexsmith: No, I would do without money like any other honest man and I would not try to corrupt the voters. I would treat the voters as honest citizens and ask them to vote for the candidate who represented their ideas. I would prefer to run an election that would not cost one dollar and where a newspaper could not hold you up for $200 or $300 for printing a few posters announcing a meeting. These are the things that create corruption, and we are sitting here passing laws to stimulate and help them along. In the name of Heaven let us get this Bill in such a shape that it will, if possible, do away with corruption at elections by the Farmer's party or by any other party.


Mr. HALBERT:: As the Farmer's party has been mentioned, 1 want to tell the hon. member (Mr. Sexsmith) that he is absolutely astray.


John Albert Sexsmith: In what way?


Robert Henry Halbert: We do not go from door to door begging subscriptions.


John Albert Sexsmith: I beg your pardon;
they did that in my own riding.


Georges Henri Boivin: This discussion with
regard to subscriptions to campaign funds does not properly come under the clause that we are now considering. The matter is covered by clause 10 of the Bill. I will allow the hon. member (Mr. Halbert) to continue his remarks because I presume the remarks of the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sexsmith) call for a reply.


Hugh Guthrie: I may inform the committee that two hon. members asked me, before the Easter recess, not to consider clause 10 again until they returned from the West. I promised that we would not consider clause 10 until Tuesday next. I make this statement for the purpose of putting my hon. friend (Mr. Halbert) straight on the point.


Robert Henry Halbert: Under those conditions I have nothing more to say at present.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: Before this clause carries I would like to express my approval of it in its present form. Not that I do not think the clause is open to some criticism, but even worded as it is it would be better left in the Bill than done away with altogether.
I would like to suggest to the Acting Solicitor General again that this possibly might be one of the best opportunities to consider the question raised by the hon. tmembtr for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in regard to compulsory voting. If you provide foi compulsory voting you remove the possibility altogether of any worry on this question. In other words, if you compel people to come out to vote, you do away with the necessity of hiring teams at elections and people will go to the polls to cast their ballots. The extent to which a great many people insist upon being carried to the polls is simply disgraceful. Without entering into a discussion of clause 10, it means a very great addition to the expense of running an election, an exceedingly costly thing as it is, even for legitimate campaign purposes. There is no use in any one telling us you ought to run an election

without incurring any expense; you simply cannot do it, at least not in our country where we have to hire halls and pay from ,$20 to $50 for that purpose. It is absurd to talk of such a thing. But if we compel people to go and vote-unless there is some reasonable excuse for their not doing so-then we do away with a great many of the evils	that we
have to contend with during an election campaign. In my opinion the Government should consider very seriously the question of compelling people to vote. If I am correct in my recollection the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) approved of that principle at one time when the subject was up for discussion in the House. I was sorry that my hon. friend did not adhere more tenaciously to his attitude on that occasion, although there is no doubt opposition was offered by the leaders on both sides of the House. Nevertheless, I believe my right hon. friend was right in his view. I hope he is still of the same mind and that he will endeavour to bring his colleagues around to his point of view. If I remember correctly the Minister of Justice offered a very reasonable solution of this difficulty at the time I speak of, and I regretted seeing him yield to the judgment of others on [DOT]the point. I hope, however, he will stick to his guns this time and insist that before the Bill goes through a provision shall be added to make voting compulsory in all reasonable cases.


Mr. MOWAT:: With respect to the question of compulsory voting


Georges Henri Boivin: I must ask the hon. gentleman and the members of the committee generally to refrain from discussing compulsory voting on this clause. I really cannot see that compulsory voting is at all relevant to the clause under discussion.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 13-payment of expenses, wages, etc., of electors forbidden.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In reference to a voter " going to or returning from the neighbourhood " of the poll, I would like the minister, if he can, to define what is meant by " the neighbourhood thereof ". If you summon a man before a magistrate it may be a very difficult thing to prove what is meant by that language.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think we
should define the language; to my mind it has a clear enough meaning. It has been the law for many years and has never given any trouble that I have ever heard


192U
[Stage Direction]
of. I think a magistrate, or a judge taking that language would be able to decide reasonably what is the " neighbourhood " of the polls. I would not have any hesitation in deciding the point myself, and I do not-think any reasonable man would.
Charles Murphy: May I ask my hon. friend if this section, in his opinion, would cover the case of giving an elector a pass to travel on the Government railway to vote?


John Dowsley Reid: It would depend on
whom he was voting for.


Charles Murphy: That is what I am
afraid of. I direct the attention of the Acting Solicitor General to the statement of his colleague.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 13 carry?


Charles Murphy: No, I want an answer
to my question.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a clause somewhere in the Bill with respect to railway passes. The Railway Act also contains a clause which prohibits the giving of passes. An express clause dealing with this subject is to be found somewhere ih the Bill, but I cannot at present recall it.


Charles Murphy: Prohibiting the giving
of passes?	.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I think section 12 would prohibit it also.


Georges Parent: That would be free transportation, whereas the clause prohibits " paying," so it would not apply.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14^-penalty for publishing false statements to affect return of any candidate.
Hugh Guthrie: I desire to point out that the first subsection is identical with the provision in the statute of 1908, but subsection 2 is taken from the British Election Act. It was not formerly in our law and it opens rather a wide door.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: I would like to hear what the view of the Committee is.


Mr. PARDEE:: Does not the Acting
Solicitor General think that subsection 2 practically does away with any effect that subsection 1 may have? If anybody were accused of such practices and were to swear that he believed any such statements he had made were true he would be absolutely exempt under the section and subsection.


Hugh Guthrie: A little more than that is required. He has to prove that he had " reasonable grounds for believing and did believe." _


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What does that mean?


Hugh Guthrie: Of course I see the difficulty. I like the section as it originally existed in the Canadian Act of 1908. Slanders at election time are very common. If a man has only to avoid the consequences of his slander by proving that he had some reasonable grounds I think there would be a great many more slanders than we have had in the past. However, I express only my own view, I leave the matter to the judgment of the Committee.


Samuel William Jacobs: It seems to me that the ordinary criminal law takes care of cases of that kind.


Hugh Guthrie: What part of it?
iMr. JACOBS: The law of slander. It applies to any person who makes a false statement.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in the criminal law about slander.


An hon. MEMBER:: Libel is also referred to in section 14.


Hugh Guthrie: Libel is a different thing.


Samuel William Jacobs: The law of slander takes care of cases of this kind.


Hugh Guthrie: In what way?


Samuel William Jacobs: The ordinary. way is to
proceed for damages.


Hugh Guthrie: The worthless man who cannot pay damages is usually guilty of slander.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not necessarily. I know cases where damages have been recovered against people for islander. I do not know what the practice is in the other provinces, but in our province damages are recovered by coercive imprisonment.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not the law in the other provinces. I think the committee is well aware that while our criminal law makes provision for the punishment of those guilty of libel, slander has never been a criminal offence in this country. I /believe experience will show that at election times the worst slanderers are men who have little or no financial responsibility, and it is poor consolation to a candidate who, for political reasons, has been slandered during an election to bring an action in our civil courts against a man of straw,

for he has all the worry and expense of a lawsuit, tried probably months after the election itself, and it is simply adding insult to injury. I think there should be some positive provision of the law, such as is suggested in this section, which was pretty fully considered by this House in 1908 before the clause was enacted.


Mr. NESBITT:: I would submit that subclause 2 be struck out, because the man who slanders will have no difficulty in proving that he had reasonable grounds for taking such action; he will easily get some of his chums to swear that he had reasonable grounds for believing the statement made by him to be true. I think the slanderer Should foe punished, and punished diligently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heartily endorse what the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) and other hon. members have said. I think every care should be taken to protect the characters of public men during an election campaign; but I feel that the effect of subsection 2 is largely to destroy the efficacy of the first subsection.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that subsection 2 of section 14 be stricken out.


Edmond Proulx: Does the Acting Solicitor General know how this legislation has worked in England? Has it served any useful purpose?


Hugh Guthrie: I know that actions for slander are more common in England than in this country, and damages are awarded on a much heavier scale, but I do not know what has been the history of that particular clause.


Samuel William Jacobs: If this section goes through as drafted we will have our courts busy disposing of these cases for at least one year after every general election.


John Ewen Sinclair: The regular process of bringing a slander suit against an offender is very slow and very expensive. It is quite common to throw mud during an election campaign, and I quite agree with the minister that the man who does so ought to be held responsible, and undoubtedly it is wise to have a summary way of dealing with such a slanderer. I am in favour of the section, and I am also in favour of striking out subsection 2.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. COCKSHUTT:: What'is the meaning of the word "before" in the first line of the

clause? " Before" an election might be five or ten years before, although I should judge the intention is to indicate either immediately before or during the course of an election.


Hugh Guthrie: "During an election"
is defined by subsection (d) of section 2 as meaning after the issue of the writ for an election, or after the dissolution of Parliament or the occurrence of a vacancy in consequence of which a writ for an election is eventually issued, until the elected candidate is returned as elected. , "Before" means the period before the issue of the writ for the election. As my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) is well aware, men are frequently nominated and became candidates in fact and in law sSme time before the writ for an election issues. It is important that a man's character should be protected at that time as well as after the issue of the writ. So the word "before" is intended to cover that period when a man is an actual candidate before the issue of the writ.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I see just one weakness in the section. A man might make a false statement of fact in relation to the personal character of a candidate which might not carry damages,-and yet he would be liable to conviction under the section as it stands. Surely there should be something added which would import that the statement was either maliciously uttered or derogatory to the person of the candidate.
Mr. GUTHRIE': It is "for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate."


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I think it might sometimes affect the return of a candidate if we said he was a gentleman, although he was not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose the phrase
"guilty of an illegal practice" is defined somewhere in this Bill, but so far we have not yet had defined what the consequence of the offence is.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 83 provides the punishment for a corrupt practice, and section 84 provides the punishment for anything which is described in the Bill as an indictable offence.


Samuel William Jacobs: This is not an indictable offence.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 85 provides a
penalty for any one who is guilty of a nonindictable offence. "Corrupt practice" is provided for by section 82. A number of

sections apply, to corrupt practices, starting at about section 79 and continuing to section 85.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have always understood a corrupt practice as that which * would unseat a member, but this section deals with a person who is guilty of slander, which is described as an illegal practice. We have a right to know what is mean by the term "illegal practice," because the punishment is applied to that which constitutes an illegal practice. Any one reading this would pre-suppose that the Bill contains a definition of the term and prescribes what the punishment is to be.


Hugh Guthrie: An "illegal practice" is well defined in this section. If any one transgresses the provisions of section 14 he is guilty of an illegal practice. Section 86 provides that any person who during an election commits a corrupt practice or an illegal practice shall ipso facto become disqualified from voting and incompetent to vote at such election. The second subsection provides that for every illegal practice committed, in addition to the disqualification the sum of $100 and costs shall be forfeited.


Mr. J. A. M. ARMSTRONG:: This section reads [DOT]
Any person who, before or during any election, for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at such election, makes or publishes any false statement.
Who is to determine that he makes a false statement? Anybody may make a statement during an election, though he may have no interest whatever in the election. (I do not see that section 14 is worth anything; in my judgment, it might as well be struck out.


John Ewen Sinclair: The expression "illegal practice" is used frequently throughout the Bill; on page 58 it occurs three times in connection with another matter. If it is necessary to give a definition of it, why not insert one among the other definitions?


Hugh Guthrie: Each section declares what is or is not an illegal practice under that section, and all illegal practices are punishable under section 86. I could not frame a definition broad enough to cover all illegal practices referred to in this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: This provision has been in the law for many years and I suppose it is not worth our while trying to discover defects in it now. If my hon. friend will 69
read it carefully, however, he will see that the offence consists in making "any false statement." Now, a "false" statement may not be defamatory. A man may say that a candidate has blue eyes when in reality they are green. That would be a "false" statement, but not a statement of a defamatory character.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 1 has reference to false statements in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not say that they must be defamatory. I do not think the clause is well constructed; yet it has been in the law for years, and as no trouble has been experienced I suppose we need not attempt to find trouble.


Georges Parent: If a newspaper company commits the offence referred to, who will be the guilty party? It would be very easy for a number of people to form themselves into a company in order to avoid the provisions of this section. Such a case does not seem to be provided for.


Hugh Guthrie: "Person" as defined in the Act would not, I suppose, include a corporation, because subsection (q) of the interpretation clause provides that "person" shall include elector, voter and candidate. But in general the term "any person" in our statutes would include a
9 p.m. company; such is the case under the Criminal Code. This section was specially drawn by Sir Allen Aylesworth when he was Minister of Justice, and I have no doubt that he very carefully considered the whole effect of it. It was discussed very fully in the session of 1908. The section as it appears in the Bill has been reproduced verbatim from the statute of 1908.


Lucien Cannon: What about a man who is not an elector, voter or candidate and who comes to a constituency during an election and makes false statements? He would not fall within section 14.


Hugh Guthrie: When we come to consider section 2, which now stands, it may be possible to improve some of these definitions. We might extend the' term "any person" to include corporations, and to cover the points raised by my hon. friends.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Section 14 says that any person guilty of an illegal practice may be brought up summarily, that is, before a Justice of the Peace on informa-



tion laid. But section 86 refers to an action as for damage brought in some of the courts of record; it has no reference whatever to proceedings in a magistrate's court'.
Section 14 agreed to.
On section 16-communications by telegraph.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section
makes mention of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a new office, is it not? I think there is no mention of that position in the old Act. Will the minister explain to the committee what were the reasons which led to this change?


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I had better reserve the explanation till we come to section 19, which provides for this office. The section as drawn is practically the same as section 313 of the Act of 1896. It has been modified in language because we have introduced the office of Chief Electoral Officer.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I suggest that the clause be changed in such a way that the party receiving the telegram should be obliged to repeat it to the Chief Electoral Officer? Otherwise there might be abuses. As it is now, the telegraph company is not responsible for a message unless it is repeated. I think that, in order to obviate trouble, the section should make clear that the party receiving the telegram shall repeat-it to the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a matter of great importance.


Hugh Guthrie: I would not think that was necessary. Occasionally, no doubt, mistakes are made in telegrams, but they are rather the exception.


Lucien Cannon: I think the suggestion
made by my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) is a very good one. In the by-election of 1917 in the county of Dorchester I had the experience of what could be done with telegraph lines. I discovered all of a sudden that we could not send any messages or communicate with the outside world at all because the telegraph companies were in the hands of our opponents. The same thing might happen in the case of any other election.


Hugh Guthrie: If you could not send a message at all, repeating the message would not improve matters.


Lucien Cannon: Telegrams might be manufactured. As a matter of fact, we had a long discussion last year over telegrams in this House.


John Archibald Campbell: I would ask the minister if this section would include wireless. Secondly, would it not be advisable to include telephoning in this section?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it would be safe to include telephoning because there is no record of telephone messages.


John Archibald Campbell: There is a record of
wireless messages.


Samuel William Jacobs: Bogus telegrams might be sent, and the suggestion I make is to obviate that. We should prevent as much wire-pulling as we can during an election.


Hugh Guthrie: It is only under very
exceptional circumstances that this section is of any'use at all. I think it has been the law of this country for many years and I never heard of a single case arising under it that caused any difficulty. You could cumber this Act with many conditions, but I think it is well to avoid that as far as possible so that we can get a plain, simple Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this an exact reproduction of the section in the old Act?
. Mr. GUTHRIE:	This section is slightly
modified in language to meet the change with regard to the new office of Chief Electoral Officer.	[DOT]


Mr. McMASTER:: As a matter of fact, has this section ever been used in the last twelve years? Has" it ever been found necessary to telegraph matters of this kind in connection with elections? Of course I do not refer to the last election. That was sui generis.


Hugh Guthrie: The section is much older than twelve years. It is practically a reproduction of section 313 of the Act of 1896.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The minister did not quite catch the import of my question. I asked whether it had ever been found necessary to make use of this section in the old Act.


Hugh Guthrie: I think there have been times when communications have been sent under the provisions of this section. It has been used, I understand, to communicate with the people of the Magdalen Islands, the Yukon and some other outlying districts.


Mr. PEDLOW:: I cannot see any reason why there should be any objection to the use of the telephone being permitted under this section. The minister has stated that there is a record of telegrams sent, but not of telephone messages. Now telephone agents are required to transmit written messages just as are telegraph operators, and in a ease

of this kind if the message was written and handed in to the telephone operator to transmit, there would be just as much record of it as there would be of a telegram. The telephone would - be of a very much greater advantage in the rural constituencies, where the telegraph is of limited application.


Hugh Guthrie: The object of the section is to attain certainty, if possible. I think the inclusion of the telephone would open the door to a good deal of looseness. I do not think my hon. friend can seriously suggest that we allow the telephone to be used, because there is no record of the conservation. The idea is to make the matter reasonably certain.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There would be just as much certainty about the transmission of a written message over the telephone as there is of a telegram. A written message could be handed in to the operator to transmit, and there would be the record.


Charles Murphy: Might I suggest to my hon. friend who is in charge of' the Bill that the reason he has just advanced for not accepting the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Pedlow) constitutes the strongest possible reason for accepting the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), and that is the necessity of attaining certainty, the necessity of having a record. I quite agree with my hon. friend that that certainly should exist, and I submit that the only way in which it can exist, when the ordinary procedure is departed from and the method of communication by telegraph is resorted to, is to adopt some such proposal as that suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), that the message be repeated by the recipient to the sender.
Might I also suggest that the clause is rather loosely drawn, and assumes quali-9 ties on the part of the Chief Electoral Offi-' cer that he may not possess. For instance, according to the language of the clause:
Whenever it appears to the satisfaction of the Chief Electoral Officer, at a time when an election is about to be held, that necessary communication
wni probably be interrupted during: such election by the severity of the season.
That implies that the Chief Electoral Officer would be a weather prophet. How can he tell whether communication is going to be interrupted?


Hugh Guthrie: Formerly it was the Governor in Council who decided that. We are taking that power away from the Gov-691
ernor in Council and giving it to an independent administrator.


Charles Murphy: In that case, I would urge on my hon. friend the advisability of accepting the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), so that in the event of this procedure being adopted there would be a record available for reference where necessary, and in that way a great many disputes and some litigation might be avoided.
Mr. JACOB'S: Might I ask that consideration of the clause be postponed in order to give me an opportunity of drafting something along the line I have suggested.
Section stands.
On Section 18-Office of Clerk of Crown in Chancery abolished.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section is entirely new, and I think the minister might give us an explanation of it.


Hugh Guthrie: !It is proposed under
this section to abolish a time-honoured custom and official, in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. I think probably this office is one of the oldest known to our Parliamentary practice. I believe you have to go far back into the constitutional history of England to find its origin; at least as far back as the days of Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell, when there was some necessity for a person to fill the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. As time has gone on, the duties of the office have been entirely changed from what they were originally. The powers of this official have been entirely taken away, save only in respect of the making of certain returns to the House of Commons and the Senate. There were originally, I think, a great number of clerks of the crown in chancery, most of whom were used purely for the transaction of legal business, such as the issuing to His Majesty's writs, summoning before chancery defaulting subjects, etc. But in our own time, although I cannot find in the statutes of this country any precise definition either of the office or of its duties and functions, though I have caused some diligent inquiry to be made respecting the matter, yet I find that as far back as. the century before the last the office was constituted here by Royal letters, patent. Subsequently it was continued in our statutory enactments, but I do not find any clear definition of what the duties of the office were. Certain it is that under our system, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery performs some functions during elections. The more important duties have been in

regard to election returns, and it was the duty of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery formerly to make return of the men who should be declared elected in the different constituencies throughout the country. He also had other duties to perform towards both Houses of Parliament. Experience, I think, has shown, perhaps more during the course of recent elections than in earlier times, that we shoujd have some person occupying almost a judicial position in this country to whom could be referred many of the difficult questions which arise periodically at every general election. It has therefore been thought that we should constitute some officer of this Parliament who would have very. large powers and control over election machinery and over the return of candidates, and that the officer so constituted should be as far as possible removed from political or partisan control of every kind. The Bill proposes that such an officer be appointed, to be called the Chief Electoral Officer, and that his tenure of office be that of one of the Judges of the Superior Courts of the country, so that he shall be removable from office in the same manner as a judge	might be removed.	It isproposed	that the	office of	Chief
Electoral Officer shall take the place entirely of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. He shall be a barrister of, I think, five years' standing. I am not sure whether that is in this Bill or not but it was in the original draft. But this Act provides that at the present time the man who shall fill the office of Chief Electoral Officer shall be the Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons. We know who the present Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons is, and in my own view, and I dare say in the view of this committee, he is a man eminently fitted to perform the duties of the office. This Act proposes to invest him with all the powers, duties and privileges which formerly appertained to the office of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Any duties which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery performed in respect to this House or the Senate shall henceforth be performed by the Clerk of this House and the Clerk of the Senate respectively. Any other duties which the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery performed in any other direction have, as I think, been properly taken care of in the new proposed legislation. I think we are giving the Chief Electoral Officer 1 much wider powers than those exercised by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and personally I can see no reason 
whatever for continuing that ancient and honourable dignity after the appointment of a new official clothed with new and wider powers, and vested with wider discretion than ever related to the office of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am glad to
know that my hon. friend is anxious to remove elections from the region of patronage and to give a fair chance to both sides.
I am very much pleased with his views on that question, and if we are to appoint a Chief Electoral Officer who will look after elections, I may suggest to him that the greatest piece of patronage in connection with elections is the appointment of returning officers in the different counties.


Hugh Guthrie: We had better wait until we get to that matter.


John Ewen Sinclair: I am going to
make the suggestion that if my hon. friend has confidence in the man Who is to be appointed Chief Electoral Officer he should hand over to that official the duty of appointing returning officers in the different counties.


Hugh Guthrie: I had better withhold
my reasons until the proper time.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is quite proper that I should mention, the matter now, so that my hon. friend can think over it. If my proposal were adopted it would remove elections from the regions of politics, and free this Act from one of the greatest objections which hon. gentlemen have to it, namely, that the Government should retain in their own right the power to appoint returning officers, who appoint the enumerators in the various districts. What does my hon. friend say to that?


Hugh Guthrie: I shall reserve what I have to say in that respect until the proper time arrives.


Samuel William Jacobs: With reference to the Acting Solicitor General's remarks as to the appointment of the Electoral Officer, I note that the Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons is to get the position. Isi it within .the knowledge of the Acting Solicitor General that this gentleman has been appointed Chancellor of the Diocese of Ottawa? I would like to know if these positions are compatible. Perhaps a gentleman who was appointed Electoral Officer and Chancellor of the Diocese of Ottawa would be occupying a position similar to that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it the intention that copies oi the lists of electors shall be supplied to the Electoral Officer as they are now furnished to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they will1 come to the Chief Electoral Officer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsections
(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) refer to the duties that formerly devolved upon the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. If that is so what is it proposed to do with that officer when the Bill has passed?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that 1
can tell exactly what they will do with him. I belive he is entitled now to some consideration by way of superannuation. I suppose that is a matter to be considered in the future. By this Bill we are going to abolish the office, and I have no doubt the Government will find some way of dealing with the situation.


John Allister Currie: I would like to say something in connection with this appointment-


Georges Henri Boivin: The appointment of
the Chief Electoral Officer?


John Allister Currie: No, I am referring to the clause under discussion whereby it is proposed to have the Parliamentary Counsel appointed as Chief Electoral Officer. It is not many months since the Government saw fit to dispense with the services of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and appoint another- Suppose the same condition should exist in a year or two or at any time; how can you allow this same person to carry a life appointment in another department of the Government? I think that is something that the Government ought to consider before they .ask this House to pass such a clause. The Parliamentary Counsel can be removed by resolution after the passing of the Act-The Law Clerk was removed; he is still quite a young man. This Bill says that the Parliamentary Counsel, who is appointed during pleasure shall be appointed for a life term as Chief Electoral Officer. Suppose the Parliamentary Council is removed, what happens to the Chief Electoral Officer? This should be considered before the clause is adopted in its finality. I wish to express my strong objection to the appointment of any of the officers of this House for life. You are only setting up a form of Prus-sianism when you are appointing officers for life. You will very soon find that these officers will consider themselves to be above the House of Commons and we will have
no control over them whatever. The Ontario Government, in the goodness of its heart, appointed certain officers for life and now it finds that it cannot do anything with them. The Law Society in Ontario memorialized the Government to do certain things to these officers but these officers sit back, laugh and say: You cannot remove us; we are the same as judges. It is an undemocratic principle to appoint any man to any office for life.


Samuel William Jacobs: Even judges?


John Allister Currie: Even judges. In the
United States judges are elected by the people, and we do not find any great desire there to have them appointed for life. It is the same with officers of this kind- Very many of the officers who are appointed for life ought to be in the asylum. The Government should take cognizance of these things when they ask this House to swallow the appointment of any person for life. It is enough that we have to appoint judges without having to appoint other officers of the Crown, for life. I trust the Minister will see to it that this clause is considered further, because this officer is going to hold a dual position. It is anomalous that a subsidiary or junior officer of this House should be the Chief Electoral Officer. I could understand the Clerk being appointed Chief Officer but not the legal officer of the House. I think the clause should stand.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before any answer is given to the hon. gentleman, I must point out that we are still upon clause 18 which has nothing to do with the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer.


Frank S. Cahill: H you do away with the present officer you will have no officer if clause 19 does not carry. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr- Currie) is quite in order when he asks to have this clause stand.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chair has only
decided that the recent discussion is not relevant to clause 18. If the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) wishes to take exception to that ruling, his proper recourse is to appeal from the ruling of the Chair.


Frank S. Cahill: Well I appeal from the
ruling of the Chair.


John Allister Currie: You called me to order, Mr. Chairman, but you did not call the rest of the members to order and the minister was proceeding to answer. It hap-

pens unfortunately that I am the man to come under your axe. The question that came under discussion was really the question of the appointment of this officer, and it came under this clause. You were courteous enough to allow all the other members to discuss it, but when I got up you pointed out that it was out of order.
Mr. 'GUTHRIE: We are going to let clause 19 stand until the next time.


Georges Henri Boivin: It was precisely because the debate had wandered away from clause 18 and that other hon. members had been guilty of the same offence that I did not call attention to the point of order until the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) had concluded his remarks.


John Allister Currie: I bow to your ruling.


Georges Henri Boivin: I only rose to ascertain if section 18 would be adopted before the minister would give his answer to a question which relates to clause 19. Does the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) persist in his desire to appeal from the ruling of the Chair?


Frank S. Cahill: I certainly do.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) will allow tho matter to stand and that he will not press the point. The matter is pretty well understood. We are all apt to wander away from the particular clause under consideration. I think it would be a pity to have any appeal from the ruling of the Chair, and I hope my hon. friend will not press the point.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend from Pontiac is right when he says that the two clauses are closely connected, and I would ask that clause 18 be allowed to stand while we discuss 19.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is altogether a different request.'


Frank S. Cahill: That is the request I got on my feet to make, but I was called to order before you heard what I had to say, and that is why I appealed from the Chair. If the clause is allowed to stand, as the minister has suggested, I will withdraw my appeal.


Georges Henri Boivin: If the hon. member for Pontiac does not accept the ruling of the Chair and withdraw his appeal, we cannot continue the work of the Committee until the House has given its decision upon the ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister has consented to this clause standing for consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any reason why.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw, withdraw.


Frank S. Cahill: I withdraw the appeal.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that the ruling is accepted and the appeal withdrawn.


John Allister Currie: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the appeal withdrawn? [DOT]


Frank S. Cahill: Yes. '


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 19.


Ernest Lapointe: What about clause 18?


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Lapointe moves that further consideration of clause 18 be postponed.


Hugh Guthrie: Just a moment. Is there any necessity for that? Are we going to make any progress? Clause 19 is the clause that brings the whole thing up. I have no objection to it standing but I want to make some progress. If anything turns on the clause I will agree to it standing.


Lucien Cannon: Can we discuss clause 18 in conjunction with clause 19?


Georges Henri Boivin: Clause 18 stands. Shall clause 19 be adopted?


Hugh Guthrie: Stand. There is no object in letting one clause stand unless you allow the other to stand also.


Ernest Lapointe: We want to discuss the two clauses together.


Lucien Cannon: The two clauses are very similar, we would like to discuss them together.


Hugh Guthrie: I was under the impression that an understanding was reached whereby contentious clauses should not be discussed at to-night's sitting. We have passed a number of non-contentious clauses and have made some progress with the Bill. If we are now to take up contentious clauses we shall not make much further progress.


Ernest Lapointe: Is this a contentious clause?
.Mr. MACKENZIE KING: Might I point out to the Acting Solicitor General that

this clause need not necessarily be a contentious one? What hon. gentlemen on this side of the House wish to ascertain is what are the exact functions of the Chief Electoral Officer. If this is satisfactorily explained there is no reason why all these clauses should not pass.


Hugh Guthrie: Well then let us go ahead.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the committee proceed to the consideration of clause 19?


John Allister Currie: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but the committee has agreed that clause 19 should stand. I was called to order for discussing a provision in clause 19 under clause 18. Now what -is the use of acting in this criss-cross fashion? I think the Government should take clause 19 'into consideration. I have pointed out what may be a grave error in this clause and it should receive further consideration from the Government. I cannot frame an amendment right away, and I think it is very inconsistent for the committee to be changing its mind every two minutes. I think the suggestion of the minister to let the two clauses stand should be adopted without further discussion so that we may get on with the rest of the Bill.


Ernest Lapointe: But other members may have .suggestions to offer to the same clause and they could be considered in conjunction with the suggestion of my hon. friend.


John Allister Currie: I quite agree but I understood from the leader of the Opposition that the committee had agreed to pass certain clauses of a non-contentious character to-night and to delay discussion of the contentious clauses until later on. I move that clauses 18 and 19 stand.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Currie moves that consideration of clause 19 be now postponed. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion 'agreed to.
On section 20-staff and temporary assistance.


Hugh Guthrie: This clause will have to stand with the others.
Section 20 stands.
On section 22-writs to be addressed to returning officers.


Hugh Guthrie: That had better stand also.
Section stands.
On section 24-election clerk to assist whenever the returning officer is disqualified.


Lucien Cannon: For what reason are returning officers disqualified? What section of the law provides for that?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know to what section my hon. friend is referring.


Lucien Cannon: I am referring to the section under consideration at the present time which says that the returning officer can be replaced by the clerk when the former is disqualified. I am asking the minister why, and when, the returning officer is disqualified.


William Stevens Fielding: Under section 22.


Lucien Cannon: What is the reason for
disqualification?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose if a person is appointed who has no right to act he would be disqualified.


William Stevens Fielding: Disqualification is
dealt with at the end of section 22 which stands.


Hugh Guthrie: -tout if such person refuses, or is unatole, to act, another may be appointed in his stead.


Lucien Cannon: What are the causes for disqualification?


Mr CURRIE:: Look up the law and find out.


Lucien Cannon: Where is the law?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that I
can state that. That is section 75 of the old law verbatim. I would assume that if the person were not a British subject he would be disqualified.


Mr CANNON:: Is there any special
clause in this Bill providing for the disqualification of returning officers?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that there is hut we are allowing the whole question of returning officers to stand over. In the meantime I will look the matter up.


Lucien Cannon: The minister says he will study the question as to the disqualification of returning officers.


Hugh Guthrie: That is under section
22 I have no objection that this clause should stand.


Lucien Cannon: I am asking why returning officers are disqualified and the minister cannot give the information to the committee.
\


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give the information now.


Edmond Proulx: If the minister will look at section 35 he will find there a list of persons ineligible to act as returning officers


Hugh Guthrie: Section 35 gives the list of persons ineligible and excusable as returning officers. I suppose if any of these were appointed they would be disqualified.


Mr.   GANNON@: But clause 35 reads:
None of the following persons shall be appointed-
So they cannot be appointed.


Hugh Guthrie: If they were appointed I suppose they would be disqualified.


Lucien Cannon: They would not be disqualified.


John Allister Currie: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all Section 35
provides for people who shall not be appointed.


Hugh Guthrie: They would be ineligible and I suppose being such would be disqualified to act.


Lucien Cannon: "Disqualified" and "ineligible" are not synonymous terms.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall clause 24 carry? Mr CANNON: I move that it stand. Mr. GUTHRIE.: Let it stand.
Motion agreed to and section stands.
On section 25-deputy returning officers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister propose to have some provision in the Act whereby the provincial polling subdivisions would-be accepted, or is the power left entirely in the hands of the returning officer to make new subdivisions?-


Mr GUTHRIE:: Well there is a provision but I do not know the number of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read clause 28.


Hugh Guthrie: That refers to the polling subdivisions. I think we had better wait until we come to that, it is rather a comprehensive clause.
Section agreed to
On section 27-misfeasance and malfeasance-penalty:


Lucien Cannon: What procedure is to be followed in recovering that fine?


Hugh Guthrie: The penalty is recoverable by any person who sues therefor.


Lucien Cannon: But before what court?
The clause does not indicate any court.


Hugh Guthrie: Any court of competent jurisdiction.


Lucien Cannon: It does not say so.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a time-honoured clause.


Lucien Cannon: But the clause does not mention that.


Hugh Guthrie: I think without mentioning it that is the plain meaning of the clause.


Lucien Cannon: I know. But my experience .as a lawyer at the bar is that a clause generally mentions when and where a fine is to be recovered, and if the clause does not mention it we might have some trouble in instituting proceedings against a returning officer, because a court might deny its jurisdiction unless it is indicated in the law itself.


Hugh Guthrie: It is hardly a fine. It is " a sum recoverable by way of damages not exceeding five hundred dollars, in addition to the amount of all actual damages to such person thereby occasioned." Subsection 2 is:
Every election officer who refuses or neglects to perform any of the obligations or formalities required of him hy this Act shall for such refusal or neglect forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars to any person who sues therefor.
In the first place, it is for damage or additional damage, and in the second place, it may be recovered by any person who sues therefor. For a sum of two hundred dollars you would have to sue in a court which hhs jurisdiction in the various provinces for the recovery of sums up to that amount.


Lucien Cannon: Does not the minister
think we could add to the clause a few words to indicate that the proceedings should be taken before courts with the usual jurisdiction?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might point out to
the hon. gentleman that the section declares that the election officer forfeits five hundred dollars to a particular person, and under the second clause that that officer becomes liable in the sum of two hundred dollars to whoever sues for it. The hon. gentleman knows that if he looks, up the code of procedure he will find what court has jurisdiction when one puts forward a claim that somebody owes him five hundred dollars. Each province has already courts with perfectly clear jurisdiction to try such

cases, without our attempting to enumerate such courts.


Lucien Cannon: As the clause stands now a person has a right to claim five hundred dollars from a returning officer. Suppose he takes action before the Superior Court in the province of Quebec. When the action comes before that court the returning officer raises the point whether this clause is penal. If it is, the action taken is a penal action, in which case it is subject to all the formalities of such an action. But if it is an ordinary action for the recovery of a debt, the formalities are different. There is nothing in the clause to indicate what kind of action this is.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I venture to say that if I were advising a client I would with a great deal of confidence take chances of any judge of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec saying: I have jurisdiction to condemn you to pay to this man the sum of money which you have forfeited to him, as well as damages. This is not in the nature of a penalty; it is something which the returning officer forfeits to an individual because he did that individual a wrong. Of course, we can conceive of all the pleas that might be made to such an action, and then insert provisions negativing all those pleas, but I think we can trust the judges to dispose of any such pleas whenever they are made.


Mr. DAVIS:: Section 92 covers what the member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) is worrying about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section is the same as that in the old Act.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to have time to look up clause 92.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The member for Neepawa (Mr. Davis) is right. Clause 92 says just what I said about the general law.


Lucien Cannon: As I pointed out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) I was talking about a penal action. If he reads clause 27 in connection with clause 92, he will find the latter clause provides for penalties by way of forfeiture, so I think I was right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And it goes on to say
that the penalties shall be recoverable or enforceable with full costs of suit by action of debt or information in any court of competent jurisdiction in the province in which the cause of action arises.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 35-who shall not be appointed election officers:
Mr. JACOBS- 1 notice that under paragraph (d) of subsection 1, among the persons who may not be appointed Chief Electoral Officer are included ecclesiastics. As the Parliamentary Counsel, who is about to be named Chief Electoral Offieer, is the newly appointed Chancellor of a diocese, I should like to know whether he can be considered an ecclesiastic within the meaning of this section?
Hugh Guthrie: I should not think so.


Edmond Proulx: What is the Disfranchising Act, referred to in paragraph (g) of subsection 1?


Hugh Guthrie: The Disfranchising Act has been on our statute books for many yeais. It provides that any persons who are guilty of illegal practices at elections may be disfranchised by the courts.


Lucien Cannon: Does the minister not think that he ought to add a paragraph to section 35 to this effect: " No members of the Civil Service of Canada "?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that has ever been suggested before. I do not see that there is great objection to it. We do mention postmasters, customs officers, or clerks in post offices or customs offices among those who shall not be obliged to act. The section is word for word with the old law; it has not been altered except as regards Chief Electoral Officer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsection 2 is the same as the old section except that in the latter, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Yukon were excepted.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, the provision now applies to the whole of Canada.


John Ewen Sinclair: I notice that the returning officer is not included among those who must be residents of the electoral district within which they are to act. It strikes me that the returning officer should be a resident of the district in which he acts.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very glad indeed that tile Government have in view the appointment as Chief Electoral Officer of the Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons; the selection is an excellent one. But after he takes office I do not want him to be disqualified in any way. I suggest that the word " ecclesiastics " be struck out of paragraph (d) of section 35. It is not

necessary, and it may give rise
10 p.m. to controversy as to what an ecclesiastic is. The term may be well defined in the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, it may be well defined in the Church of England, but other churches may have different ideas as to what is an ecclesiastic. I think if the minister left out that word and simply said priests and ministers, it would be good enough.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With regard to the apprehensions of the hon. gentleman as regards the Parliamentary Counsel, if he has no other reason than those apprehensions, I think he might be willing to let this section, -which is just as it has been from time immemorial-stand. I do not think there will be any serious difficulty when you come to apply the statute in determining what is meant by an ecclesiastic. Of course, if there: be religious denominations in connection with which there are no officers who are know as ecclesiastics, we shall have no difficulty with regard to them. With regard to the one religious denomination where I know of the expression being used, there will be no difficulty whatever in defining what is meant by an ecclesiastic. It would necessarily be somebody officially attached to the service of the church and religion. So far as I understand the functions of the Chancellor, they are rather in the line of the profession of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) and my own.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The statement of the Minister of Justice gives more strength to my contention. He says that an ecclesiastic is some person who is officially attached to the service of the church. Well, I would understand that a chancellor, who is appointed as a functionary in connection with any diocese, had something to do with the service of a church. I do not know how he is appointed. The church to which I belong has no such functionary as a chancellor, but the Minister of Justice says he is an official who has to do with the service of the church, who is "officially attached" to the church. If he made a mistake and that is not the proper definition, perhaps I will agree with him. A man who is appointed chancellor of a diocese has not simply to' do with the congregation of the church he attends on Sunday, but his duties extend over the whole diocese, which may consist of several counties and comprise thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. He has to do with spiritual affairs. I would suppose that if ecclesiacticism is connected with spiritual affairs, an official who is so

closely connected with spiritual affairs as a chancellor would be an ecclesiastic. If the minister says it is a man in holy orders I will recede, of course, from my contention.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have to admit that 1 am not familiar and cannot speak with authority as to the functions of a chancellor, but if my conception is correct, he is the position of a legal adviser. My hon. friend, if he should be consulted by the authorities of his church and give them an opinion, would hardly plume himself thereafter as being an ecclesiastic. I speak subject to correction, but what I apprehend by an ecclesiastic is somebody who takes part in the actual religious services, not somebody-to carry my hon. friend's argument to the extreme-who furnishes bread to the incumbent. You would not say that he could be looked upon as an ecclesiastic because he was furnishing something to the church, and I think the man who furnishes the law is no more to be looked upon as an ecclesiastic.


Samuel William Jacobs: I think the minister and myself are really rushing in where angels fear to tread in discussing the functions ol a chancellor of a diocese. I would point out to the minister that Mr. Gisborne, whom we all respect, and who I hope will occupy this position for many years because there is none more worthy, preached a sermon in the Anglican Church last Sunday. I understand that it was an excellent sermon and that multitudes saw the light and were saved. Now, surely, the chancellor of a diocese, if he is worthy enough to preach a sermon, must be performing ecclesiastical functions, as I understand them. If that be so, in order that there should be no question at all about his appointment, I think the Government would be well advised to strike out the word "ecclesiastic" from this subsection.


William Foster Cockshutt: As a member of the. Church of England I may say that my hon. friend's fears are very largely groundless-It is open to any layman to get into any pulpit into which he is invited, and I fancy that if the chancellor appeared in the pulpit last Sunday he did so on the invitation of the clergyman, not on his own invitation. It is no unusual thing for a layman, whose business is not to preadh, to give advice occasionally in a religious way. The chancellor has been very well defined by the Minister of Justice. He is an adviser to the Synod, a legal adviser largely. He is also an adviser with regard to the canons of the church and the so-called by-laws, and of

the administration of the temporalities of the Church. He has no ecclesiastical functions, as I understand it, except that he may occasionally walk in his gown in a procession along with bishops, priests and deacons all in their proper order. Instead of it being a disqualification I would* think that the high character and standing of the individual would peculiarly fit him to be a proper returning officer, because he will see straight. If he is a good chancellor of the Church of England, he can do no wrong, and will do no wrong in that position.


Lucien Cannon: Suppose one of these
gentlemen who are chosen to act as returning officers refuses to do so. Is any penalty provided?	.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a penalty for any who refuses to do any duty cast upon him by this Act.


Lucien Cannon: Where is it provided?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot say at the moment, but we will come to it.


Mr. COPP:: I cannot understand why
ministers, priests and ecclesiastics should be ineligible to act as returning officers or poll clerks if they are asked to do so, particularly in country districts where they would be likely to know more people than many others. I do not see why they should be debarred from acting.


Hugh Guthrie: That has been the
established practice both here and in Great Britain as far back as the memory of man goes. It has always been assumed, rightly or wrongly, that ministers of the Gospei, Whatever church they may belong to, exercise some influence over their flock, and I think the chief idea in excluding them from acting as election officers was to remove any possibility of clerical influence at the time of the poll. I think that is a very strong reason.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is it the intention to
exclude the members of the Board of Commerce? They rank as judges.


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Samuel William Jacobs: To continue the question of the appointment of ecclesiastics, may I read from the Ottawa Citizen of April 5, 1920, a short excerpt from a sermon delivered by the Rev. Mr. Gisborne? We are discussing the question of the appointment of an ecclesiastic to the position of Chief Returning Officer. There is only one paragraph that I desire to read, Mr. Chairman, and it gives point to my argument.


Georges Henri Boivin: I m^st ask the hon.
member if the remarks contained in the sermon has reference to the clause under consideration.


Samuel William Jacobs: I can state fully and
frankly, after reading the remarks of the Rev. Mr. Gisborne, that there is not a word in his sermon concerning this Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must rule, therefore, that the sermon cannot be read.
Mr. J. HI. 'SINCLAIR: I wish to impress upon the minister my proposal in regard to subsection 2, which provides that no person shall be appointed election clerk, deputy returning officer, registrar or poll clerk unless he is a resident of the electoral district within which he has to act. I suggest that we should make this subsection applicable to returning officers as well. I See no reason why a returning officer should be imported from one electoral district to another.


Hugh Guthrie: I understood that we
had allowed to stand everything relating to the duties of returning officers.


Lucien Cannon: I asked the minister if there was a penalty and he said that there was. I have looked up the Act and find that penalities are provided for from section 84 to section 98, but I do not find anywhere in these sections a penalty for the man who has been' appointed returning officer and fails to perform his duties.


Hugh Guthrie: There is one clause covering all election officers.


Lucien Cannon: Where is it?


Hugh Guthrie: I will find it; I cannot put my hand on all these things at a moment's notice.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that section 35 is to stand until we are further enlightened on the question of what is or is not an ecclesiastic?


Hugh Guthrie: I think we are wasting a great deal of time on a matter of minor importance, but if my hon. friend seriously asks that the clause shall stand I am prepared to let it stand.


William Foster Cockshutt: I should like to know from my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs), whether or not a Rabbi would be included in the definition of ecclesiastics.


Samuel William Jacobs: I should have to get an opinion from the Sanhedrin before I could give my hon. friend the information he asks for.


Mr. McKENZJE:: Would a Salvation
Army officer be disqualified?
Mr. Mel'S A AC: I think the word "ecclesiastic" in its present connection refers to any one who is preparing for the priesthood or the clergy. I am not sure whether or not the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria would come under the definition of "ecclesiastic," but I am informed that he frequently takes a turn at preaching in the pulpit when an opportunity presents itself.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am rather pleased to think that my hon. friend thinks me capable of filling so exalted an office. It is more than we can say of the hon. member, however; for while it is true he did attempt to qualify as a preacher, the higher authorities turned him down on the ground of his unfortunate unfitness.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, may I give the definition of the word "ecclesiastic"? An ecclesiastic is "a person who is in Orders or is consecrated to the service of the church and the ministry of religion; a clergyman, a priest." I think that disposes of the question concerning Mr. Gisborne, raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie).


Samuel William Jacobs: What dictionary are you reading from?


Robert James Manion: Webster's.


Lucien Cannon: Will the Acting Solicitor General give me the information I asked for?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member's question is, I think, whether any penalty is imposed upon a Returning Officer who fails to perform the duties of his office. When we come to the penalty clauses we can provide a penalty for recreant returning officers, if there is none. I do not see, however, how that matter can affect this clause.


Lucien Cannon: I know a returning officer in my county-


Hugh Guthrie: We will put it in if it is not here.


Lucien Cannon: Before adopting a clause of this importance I would like to know what we are adopting.


Hugh Guthrie: The question does not
arise under this clause. This is a clause which says what persons shall be ineligible or excusable. Clause 27, which has already

been carried, provides a penalty for the returning officer.


John Ewen Sinclair: I would like to know what the minister intends to do with this clause. If he intends to go on I propose to submit an amendment, but if it is going to stand I do not want to put my amendment on record at this time.


Hugh Guthrie: Under the arrangement, if there is any amendment, the clause will certainly stand.	.


John Ewen Sinclair: I beg to move that further consideration of clause 35 be postponed.
Motion agreed to and section stands.
On section 36-writs of election, indexed copies of this Act, blank poll books and forms to be sent to returning officer:


Edmond Proulx: That means that a stamp . will have to be made for every election.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: It was found in the last provincial election in Ontario that it was very costly and they intend to do away with the stamp at every election.


Hugh Guthrie: We will adopt a cheaper stamp.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like to call attention to the words in subsection (b) "and of such instructions as are required to properly carry out the election." These instructions are supposed to go out from the Chief Electoral Officer. In the last election in our part of the country instructions were contained in the book of instructions that went out that were not justified by the Act. Of course any instructions going out must be in conformity with the effect of the election law. I maintain that no instructions should go out except those which have the approval of the Department of Justice. If we give any election officer the power to issue instructions within the terms of the Act we are giving him too much power and we may be putting it in the hands of officials and persons who are not lawyers to issue instructions which are not in accordance with the Act.


Hugh Guthrie: The former Act had in it a provision that the instructions were to be approved by the Governor in Council. In the drafting of this Bill we have tried to get as far away from the Governor in Council or Department of Justice as possible. We have deliberately selected a high

legal official and, having given him the position practically of a judge, we have allowed him to draw the instructions without the intervention of the Government. 1 have no objection to putting in a clause that the Minister of Justice or the Governor in Council shall approve of the instructions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have still the greatest confidence in the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice is responsible to this House while the Chief Electoral Officer will not be. I agree with the ' minister as to the wisdom of getting away as far as possible from this aggregation known as the Governor in Council, but I would like the Department of Justice to give its approval to any interpretation that is put upon the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Minister of Justice will very probably be a candidate; he is a member of one of the two parties contesting the election, and it seems fairer to everybody that as head of the Department of Justice and responsible for the advice that it gives, he should not have placed upon him the responsibility of dealing with a matter of this kind. I think perhaps there is some question of fairness to the Minister of Justice himself. I am sure that all our Ministers of Justice have been jealous of their reputations and that they have been careful that their legal opinions should not be influenced or animated by party interest. You put the Minister of Justice, in the midst of a hard-fought election, in the position where he would give instructions as to how the election law was going to be carried out, and if you do that you will virtually have to put all the officers for carrying on that election under his direction in so far as the law is concerned. That places the Minister of Justice in a very difficult position, and I would have thought that you would have recognized that what we are doing in taking the Parliamentary Counsel-who will not be the Parliamentary Ceunsel unless he is a competent lawyer; an officer of this House in no way connected with either party-and leaving it to him to give the legal instructions and advice is something that everybody would accept as being. the very best evidence for a desire to get away not only from any actual endeavour to control ot direct elections on the part of the Government, but from any possibility of such a thing taking place. I had thought that the hon. gentleman on reflection would see that
this is in the nature of providing an independent counsel, somebody who will have no affiiliation with either party to the contest.	-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I appreciate the observations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie), but I think of all persons who are regarded as being deserving of high office the'Minister of Justice would be the one-who would not be supposed to be capable of # placing any misconstruction upon the election law. Whatever opinion may be held elsewhere, in the part of the country from which I come, the Department of Justice carries very great weight, and anything coming from it would be received without question. But if the Minister of Justice objects to it I would call the attention of the Acting Solicitor General to the fact that we have no guarantee here that the instructions will be prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer.


Hugh Guthrie: Read the section.
Mr. McKENZIE-(Reading:
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election the chief electoral officer shall transmit to the returning officer-
And so forth. It says he shall "transmit" but does not say he shall "prepare and transmit." If the minister will amend the clause so as to provide that immediately after the issue of the writ of election the chief electoral officer "shall prepare," if he will put the responsibility of preparing instructions upon this new official I am prepared to accept it. The only provision at present is that he shall "transmit"; we have nobody responsible for the preparation oi the instructions.
Mr. .7. H. SINCLAIR: I think the point taken by my hon. friend is a good one. In the election of 1917 certain instructions were sent out that were not justified by the Act.
I think I could show that to my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) if I had the Act at hand. I can remember one instance in which the instructions were given to the enumerators that they put names on the voters' list without any affidavit whatever; and they also went so far as to say that when an application was made on affidavit they would disregard that affidavit and strike out the man's name off the list. Now that was not justified by the Act. I think the Department of Justice should be, in some way or other, responsible for any instructions that are sent out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does not the minister think that if we are going to have higher

authority, protection, and security by reason of the appointment of this new official we should throw upon that official the responsibility of preparing those instructions? If he will make section 36 to read, "immediately after the issue of the writ of election the Chief Electoral Officer shall prepare and transmit". If after the word "shall" in the second line he will add the words "prepare and" then the responsibility is thrown upon the Chief Electoral Officer and he will be accountable for it.


Hugh Guthrie: To my mind the language is absolutely and abundantly clear. My hon. friend's first contention was that the Minister of Justice should have the preparation of these instructions, or that some official of the Government should have it. We have tried to get away as far as possible from that, and when the difficulty is pointed out to my hon. friend he seeks to interject something else in order to evade his first point. To my mind the language is so clear that any one who runs may read. However if my hon. friend wants to make the point clear without peradventure, we agree. What is the suggestion?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not fond of running away from a position like some hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not running away from anything, and if the Acting Solicitor General thinks that by loud talk and swinging himself around he is going to browbeat me into anything he is very much mistaken. I said that I thought the Department of Justice, from whom every department of the Government receives an interpretation of the law and whose opinion they are supposed to take-


Hugh Guthrie: Very well, let us put it in.
Mr. McKENZIEshould also be the proper authority for preparing instructions in regard to this election law. The Minister of J ustice says that he wants to get away from the responsibility and he tells us that we have another officer who is responsible and that we should leave the responsibility with him. Now what I suggested was that if, in the second line of section 35 the two words " prepare and" were added then the Chief Electoral Officer will have the responsibility of the instructions that will go out.


Hugh Guthrie: That will not read properly. Let the hon. gentleman read on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will read this way:
Immediately after the issue of the writ of election the chief electoral officer shall prepare and transmit to the returning officer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The writ.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But the writ has already been issued. After the writ has been issued the hon. gentleman wants to prepare it. If the hon. gentleman wishes to carry out his idea I suggest that his amendment be inserted in paragraph (b). Then the electoral officer will be required to transmit "sufficient copiously indexed copies of this Act and such instructions prepared by him as are required". I think that would meet the desire of the hon. gentleman.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The words in paragraph (a), "such writ" did not catch my eye but the Minister of Justice, and certainly the illuminating gentleman who is in charge of this Bill, did not misunderstand my purpose. It is mere quibbling to try to get out of it by saying that I did not propose to insert the amendment in the right place.


Hugh Guthrie: I move then that the
words suggested by the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) be inserted after the word "instructions" in the second line of paragraph (b). Will that satisfy him?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 37-proclamation by returning officer mailed to postmaster.
Hugh Guthrie: Some change requires
to be made in the first part of this section. It reads:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall, by a proclamation in form L, issued

The word "issued" should be struck out. The latter part of the paragraph quoted will then read:
-by a proclamation in form L under his hand in the English and French language.
Then in the 28th line the word "mailed" should :be struck out and the words "shall mail" be inserted. The remainder of the paragraph will then read:
[DOT]-and shall mail one copy at least to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral district.


Mr. TURGEON:: Before the amendment is carried I would ask the Acting Solicitor General, why confine to the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba the privilege of having proclamations issued in the French and English languages? In the province of New Brunswick "nearly one third of the population is French, and in several sections only one or two English voters will be found.

We are now extending the franchise to our women, and amongst them the English language is not so well known as among the men, but those women will be anxious to read the proclamations of the Government for their guidance at election times, and they appreciate the French language just as much as the people of Quebec. Therefore I would ask the Acting Solicitor General to so amend this section as to leave to the discretion of the returning officer in any French district in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, as well as in Manitoba and Quebec, the issuance of proclamations in the French language. We may as well admit at once the equality of the English and French languages, and not be guided merely by regard for dollars and cents, as was so cleverly said tljis afternoon by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Stein). I hope my appeal will be responded to by the Acting Solicitor General.


Edmond Proulx: The same argument would apply to certain parts of the province of Ontario where in some counties a majority of the electors speak the French language. If this provision is to be extended beyond Quebec and Manitoba, I would endorse the suggestion of my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) that the returning officer be empowered in his discretion to issue proclamations in both languages. Probably the best procedure would be to leave the matter to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer.


Mr. LEGER:: I approve very heartily of what my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) has said as to having these proclamations issued in French. I know many counties in the province of New Brunswick where the population are mostly Frenchspeaking, and in some of the parishes in my constituency all the people are Frenchspeaking. Therefore I think it will be only right and just for the Government to allow the proclamations to be issued in French as well as in English in the provinces referred to.


Hugh Guthrie: Before we pass away from clerical errors, there is another error in line 2,- where the word " by " should be " issue " with the comma after " shall " stricken out. Also before the word " indicate " in line thirty should be inserted " and such proclamations shall." That would make the section read as follows:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall issue a proclamation in form L under his hand in
the English and French languages in every electoral district in the Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and in the English language only in other electoral districts, and shall mail one copy at least to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral district, and such proclamation shall indicate-
And so on.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ewen Sinclair: Does this clause differ from that in the original Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Not in regard to the
language question.


John Ewen Sinclair: In the province
of Nova Scotia it has been the practice of the returning officer to post up the proclamation, and his fees are charged in the election expenses.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this is a little
more elaborate. The postmaster is bound to post up these proclamations under subsection 5.


John Ewen Sinclair: Does that relieve the returning officer from responsibility in regard to posting notices?


Hugh Guthrie: No. He shall issue a
proclamation and shall mail one copy at least to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral distiict, and such proclamation shall indicate the place and time fixed for the nomination of candidates, the day on which the poll for taking the votes of the electors is to be held, and the time when and the place where the returning officer will add up the number of votes given to the several candidates. The returning officer shall at the same time notify in wiiting each postmaster of the provisions of subsection (5) of this section. Subsection (5) provides that:
Every postmaster shall, forthwith after receipt of such proclamation, post it up in some conspicuous place within his office to which the public has access and maintain it posted there until the time fixed for nomination of candidates has passed, and failure to do so shall be ground for his dismissal from office. For the purposes of this provision such postmaster shall be deemed an election officer and liable as such.
I think this provides a pretty wide publicity for the proclamations.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Hugh Guthrie: I think this has been
the law for some time.


William Stevens Fielding: In our province proclamations have been published outside the post offices.


Edmond Proulx: I think this procedure
is new. Formerly the returning officer had to post proclamations in the three most conspicuous places in every polling subdivision. I approve of the change. These proclamations will now be seen at the post offices, the mailing to each post office will be sufficient, and it will decrease the election costs.


Hugh Guthrie: And of course each
candidate gets five additional copies. But there might be some question as to how this would work out in big cities where there is only one post office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This clause is _ likely to give rise to further discussion. It is now eleven o'clock, I have seen only a dozen members on the Government side for some time past, and I think we have already done a pretty good day's work.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I move that
clause 37 stand.
Mr. DuTREMBLAY: I think in amending this section to make it apply to any other province it should be understood absolutely that both languages are to be used in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and that in these two provinces the issuance of the proclamation in the French language is not to be left to the discretion of the returning officer.


Hugh Guthrie: The clause will stand.
I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Lucien Cannon: Before we are through
with this clause I want to point out-


Georges Henri Boivin: The motion that the
Committee rise and report progress is not debatable. If the hon. member for Dorchester desires to say a few' words I will ask the Acting Solicitor General to withdraw his motion, but clause 37 stands and the hon. member will have a further opportunity of speaking to it,


Lucien Cannon: I will not proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.
Friday, April 9, 1920.